12/11/2001 Planning Commission AgendaDecember, 2001, 12/11/2001, Planning, Commission, Meeting, Agenda, Allow the construction of a 1,071 square foot first-story addition and the construction of a new 1,251 square foot second-story addition to an existing single-family residence. The addition is proposed at a maximum height of 22.41’, as measured from the finish grade adjacent to the lowest foundation (94.02’) to the highest ridge (116.43’), and 19.28’, as measured form the highest elevation to be covered by structure (97.15’) to the highest ridge, Allow the construction of a 630 square-foot detached three-car garage and a 6-foot high concrete wall within the 20-foot front yard setback area. The proposed garage will replace an existing 404 square-foot attached garage, which is currently not in the setback area. A Coastal Permit is required for "new development" in all residential districts seaward of Palos Verdes Drive SouthThe 12/11/2001 RPV Planning Commission Meeting Agenda

Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 2001

December
11, 2001

DISCLAIMER

The following
Planning Commission agenda includes text only version of the staff
reports associated with the business matters to be brought before
for the Planning Commission at its Regular Meeting of this date.
Changes to the staff reports may be necessary prior to the actual
Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission may elect to
delete or continue business matters at the beginning of the Planning
Commission Meeting. Additionally, staff reports attachments, including
but not limited to, pictures, plans, drawings, spreadsheet presentations,
financial statements and correspondences are not included. The attachments
are available for review with the official agenda package at the
Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department.

This agenda has been prepared for the orderly progression of Planning
Commission business.The Planning Commission is very interested
in hearing your comments and encourages your participation in the meeting.
These agenda instructions are intended to familiarize
you with how the meeting will be conducted, what to expect and how to
most effectively participate in the process.

Staff
Reports

Detailed
staff reports on the items contained in this agenda are available from
the Planning Department the Friday before the meeting and are posted
for public viewing immediately prior to the meeting in the hallway outside
the chambers.The Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department is located
at City Hall at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes.The Department's public counter hours are from
7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Monday through Friday and from 4:30 p.m. to
5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday.The telephone number is (310) 377-6008.

Organization
of the Agenda

The
Planning Commission agenda is divided into the following sections:

Consent Calendar:

This
section consists of routine items, which, unless a request has been
received from the public, a Commission member or Staff to remove
a particular item for discussion, are enacted by one motion of the
Planning Commission.

Continued Business:

This
section consists of items that were held over from a previous Planning
Commission meetings and for which a decision has not yet been made.

Public Hearings:

This
section is devoted to noticed public hearings which have not been
previously heard by the Commission.

New Business:

This
section is for items that do not require a noticed public hearing.Pursuant to adopted Planning Commission procedure, the Commission
will, except under exceptional circumstances and with the consent
of the majority of the Commission, adjourn its meetings on or before
12:00 a.m. and not consider new business items after 11:00 p.m.,
with any unfinished business being continued to the next regular,
adjourned, or special meeting.

Audience Comments:

This
part of the agenda is reserved for making comments on matters which
are NOT on the agenda.Comments
must be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the Planning
Commission.Due to State
law, no action can be taken on matters brought up under Audience
Comments.If action by the Commission is necessary, the
matter may be placed on a future agenda, or referred to Staff, as
determined by the Commission.

Presentation
of Agenda Items

Unless
the Chairperson in his or her discretion should direct otherwise, the
order of the presentation is generally as follows:

(a)

Presentation of staff report, including any environmental
analysis or recommendation.

(b)

Questions of staff by members of Planning Commission.

(c)

Public hearing opened.

(d)

Presentation of the applicant(s) or appellant(s).

(e)

Presentation of persons in favor of the requested action.

(f)

Presentation of persons in opposition to the requested
action.

(g)

Rebuttal comments by the applicant(s) or appellant(s),
if requested.

(h)

Closing comments by staff.

(i)

Public hearing closed.

How to Speak on an Item

In order to speak on an item, please completely fill
out a Request to Speak form and return it to the recording secretary.These half-sheet forms (which are printed on colored paper)
are available on the table in the hallway outside the chambers or
from the recording secretary, who is seated on the left-hand side
of the dais (the table with the blue skirt at the front of the meeting
room), next to the light timer.Requests
to speak on an item must be submitted to the recording secretary prior
to the completion of the remarks of the first speaker on the item.No request forms to speak on the particular item will be accepted
after that time.

After your name is called by the recording secretary,
please approach the lectern and speak clearly into the microphone.The height of the microphone may be adjusted by hand if necessary.Before beginning your comments
on the item, please state your name and address for the record.

The length of time that each person is allowed to
speak on individual items is determined by the Chairman and is usually
based on the number of speakers on the particular item.Normally, the applicants and appellants are
limited to a five (5) minute presentation and a three (3) minute rebuttal
(if requested). All other persons are generally limited to three (3)
minutes per person.

Submittal
of Written Correspondence

You
may submit written evidence to the Planning Commission through the
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and request that
the Commission receive copies of the submitted materials prior to
the meeting.However,
such written evidence must be submitted by 12:00 noon on the
Monday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. If
any written evidence is submitted after the Monday noon deadline,
the Commission will not consider it at the meeting.However, it will be distributed as part of the agenda packet
for any forthcoming meeting, provided that the item is continued.This does not prevent you from reading written comments that
are submitted late into the record as part of oral comments, in accordance
with the time limits discussed above.

Conduct at
the Meeting

The
Planning Commission has adopted a set of rules for conduct during
Planning Commission meetings. Although it is a very rare occurrence,
the Chairperson may order from the Planning Commission Chambers any
person(s) who commit the following acts with respect to a regular
or special meeting of the Planning Commission:

1.

Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward
the Commission or any member thereof, which interrupts the due
and orderly course of said meeting.

2.

A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent
disturbance, which interrupts the due and orderly course of said
meeting.

3.

Disobedience of any lawful order of the Chairperson which
shall include an order to be seated or refrain from addressing
the Commission.

4.

Any other interference with the due and orderly course
of the meeting.

Your
cooperation in making the Planning Commission meeting run smoothly
and fairly for all participants in greatly appreciated.

BEGINNING
OF PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA

RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY,
DECEMBER 11, 2001

FRED
HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

REGULAR
MEETING

7:00
P.M.

SCHEDULING NOTES

REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY
PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE REMARKS OF THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE ITEM.
NO REQUEST FORMS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER THAT TIME.

PURSUANT
TO ADOPTED PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURE, NEW BUSINESS ITEMS NOT HEARD
BEFORE ll:00 P.M. WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED AND WILL BE HEARD
ON THE NEXT COMMISSION AGENDA.

Requested
Action: Allow the construction of a 1,071 square foot first-story
addition and the construction of a new 1,251 square foot second-story
addition to an existing single-family residence. The addition is proposed
at a maximum height of 22.41’, as measured from the finish grade adjacent
to the lowest foundation (94.02’) to the highest ridge (116.43’),
and 19.28’, as measured form the highest elevation to be covered by
structure (97.15’) to the highest ridge.

Requested
Action: Allow the demolition of an existing one-story residence,
and construction of a new two-story residence measuring 3,921 square
feet in area, and an overall height of 26-feet. The new residence
will contain a balcony, where a portion of the balcony projects 1’-9"
into the required 20-foot front yard setback; thereby maintaining
an 18’-3" front yard setback. Lastly, a total of 310 cubic yards
of associated grading is proposed to accommodate the new residence.

Recommendation:Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing
to the January 22, 2002 meeting, and direct Staff to re-notice the proposed
project in accordance to the provisions set forth in the Development
Code.

Requested
Action: Overturn the use determination by the Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement that senior condominiums are not consistent
with the intent and purpose the Institutional (I) zoning district
and are, therefore, not a permitted use in this zoning district. The
impetus for this use determination was a request by Standard Pacific
to pursue a development project on a 9.76-acre site in the 5600-block
of Crestridge Road that would consist of one hundred four (104) senior
condominiums and a resident community center.

Recommendation:
Deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s determination that senior
condominiums are inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Institutional
(I) zoning district, via Minute Order.

Requested
Action: Allow the construction of a 630 square-foot detached three-car
garage and a 6-foot high concrete wall within the 20-foot front yard
setback area. The proposed garage will replace an existing 404 square-foot
attached garage, which is currently not in the setback area. A Coastal
Permit is required for "new development" in all residential
districts seaward of Palos Verdes Drive South.

Chairman Lyon recognized
and congratulated Commissioner Paulson on his election to the Library
Board and Vice Chairman Clark on his election to the City Council.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Chairman Lyon suggested
approving the agenda as presented, however to be flexible with the order
as the Commission would be going into a closed session with the City
Attorney and the room would not be available until 7:30. The Commission
unanimously agreed.

COMMUNICATIONS

Director/Secretary
Rojas reported that the City Council had, at their November 7 meeting,
agreed to put the Long Point project on hold until May 7, 2002 as requested
by the applicant.

Commissioner Long stated that Verizon Wireless was either a current
or former client of the law firm he worked for and, as he had done in
the past, he would recuse himself from hearing this item.

Director/Secretary
Rojas presented a brief staff report. He stated that the applicant has,
as directed by the Planning Commission, been speaking with the residents
and has investigated a different location that is more acceptable to
the residents. The applicant needs to conduct additional studies to
make sure they can get the needed coverage. Therefore, staff requests
the item be tabled until the applicant is ready and a new notice will
be circulated to the interested parties.

Commissioner Vannorsdall
moved to table the item until the application is ready to move forward,
at which time a new noticed public hearing date will be established,
seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner
Long abstaining.

Assistant Planner Yu presented the staff report. She explained that
the application had been revised to consist of less than 1,000 cubic
yards of grading, which no longer requires Planning Commission approval.
Therefore, staff was recommending the Planning Commission remand the
application to the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement
for review.

Commissioner Vannorsdall
moved to approve staff recommendations and remand the application to
the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, seconded by
Commissioner Paulson. Approved, (6-0).

Assistant Planner Yu presented the staff report. She stated that he
applicant was requesting a revision to the previously approved covered
patio by enclosing the covered patio to create habitable space. She
stated that the Height Variation application and Variance application
were consistent with the findings of the previously approved applications.
Therefore, staff was recommending approval of the proposed revisions.

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report. He explained that the
previous approval contained a condition requiring the applicants to
repair damaged portions of the swale and chain link fence between their
property and the property at 3417 Starline Drive (Accetta). He stated
this condition was added at the request of the Accettas. He explained
that since then the Accettas and Prices have obtained restraining orders
against one another to prevent access to one another’s property. Further,
the Accettas have filed a lawsuit against the Prices to establish rights
to a portion of the property that contains the fence and swale. The
Prices have since come to the City saying they were unable to fulfill
the obligation imposed on them in Condition No. 11. Staff has received
a letter from the Accetta’s attorney confirming the Prices could not
pass on the property to repair the swale and fence. Therefore, staff
determined the Prices could not fulfill the Condition of Approval due
to circumstances beyond their control at this time and staff was requesting
the Planning Commission consider rescinding the condition. He noted
that staff was concerned that rescinding this approval might jeopardize
the safety of the Price’s property as well as other properties along
the swale. Therefore, staff had required the Prices to have their engineer
of record provide a statement to attest to the adequacy of the existing
site drainage. He also noted that the city’s geotechnical consultant
and building official had inspected the cut of the swale area on numerous
occasions and have noted no adverse impacts to the subject or adjacent
properties.

Commissioner Long
stated he had visited the site and spoken with Mr. Price. He stated
that he had asked Mr. Price if and when the litigation is resolved and
if the swale is determined to be on his property, would he be willing
to repair the swale. He noted that Mr. Price stated that he would then
be willing to repair the swale. Therefore, he suggested the condition
be amended or modified to state that the Prices need not comply with
condition 11 unless or until such time as legal impediments preventing
the compliance are removed.

Commissioner Paulson
asked staff if they felt there was any heath, safety, or welfare issues
or concerns regarding this request.

Senior Planner Fox
confirmed that staff had no health, safety, or welfare issues with the
request.

Chairman Lyon opened
the public hearing.

Francine Accetta
3417 Starline Drive stated that the Prices had damaged and undermined
her property while constructing their wall. She stated that the Prices
had also moved her permanent fencing on her property and relocated it
inside the swale. She felt the Prices should be required to post a bond
to repair the damage done.

Commissioner Paulson
asked if the legal issue was where the property line was and right of
ownership.

Mrs. Accetta stated
the issue was where the fence would be placed after the slope is repaired.
She felt the fence should be replaced in the original position, which
was on the eastern side of the swale.

Chairman Lyon asked
Mrs. Accetta if she and the Prices agreed on where the property line
was located.

Mrs. Accetta stated
that she had a survey done and the Prices had a survey done, but she
did not know the results of the Price’s survey.

Commissioner Long
stated that the Planning Commission could not solve where the property
line was located or where the fence should be located. He read condition
11 to Mrs. Accetta and asked her if she was willing to agree to the
removal of any impediments, such as restraining orders preventing the
Prices from entering her property, for the sole purpose of permitting
Mr. Price to enter onto the property to repair the swale.

Mrs. Accetta did
not think she could do that since there was a pending lawsuit. She stated
that she would want to make certain that anyone who came on her property
was licensed and properly insured and she would want to know exactly
how the fence and swale were going to be repaired.

Commissioner Cartwright
asked Mrs. Accetta where she would like the fence replaced.

Mrs. Accetta responded
that if she had her choice the fence would be placed back where it was,
which was on the eastern side of the concrete swale. In doing so, the
fence would be both on her property and a portion of Mr. Price’s property.
She did not feel the fence should be put on the property line, as that
would mean the chain link fence would be placed in the middle of a concrete
swale.

Commissioner Long
explained that the Planning Commission could only amend or remove the
existing condition 11, which was written for the Accetta’s benefit.
The lawsuit now prevents the Prices from carrying out that condition.
He felt that if Mrs. Accetta wanted the swale repaired, she might be
well behooved to sit down with the Prices and the attorneys to try to
work out a solution to allow the repair to take place. He stated that
the Planning Commission could not order the Prices, as a condition,
to repair the swale as it would violate the restraining order placed
against them.

Mrs. Accetta responded
that the Planning Commission could require the Prices to post a bond
so that at a later date the Prices can repair the swale.

Andrea Wakita
stated she was the architect and contractor for the Prices. She stated
that the Prices have had three independent surveys of the property done
and all three surveys came out identical. She explained that the surveys
showed the original fence to be located almost two feet within the Price’s
property. She stated that the swale had damage before construction began
and it was further damaged during construction. She noted that Mr. Price
has never been opposed to repairing or replacing the damaged swale.

Chairman Lyon felt
it was logical for the Prices to install the fence on their side of
the swale, placing it entirely on their property. He asked if that course
of action would be acceptable to the Prices.

Ms. Wakita explained
that the swale crosses over the property line in various sections, making
it very difficult to place the wall entirely on the Price’s property.
She stated that there would also then be the issue of access to the
swale.

Chairman Lyon closed
the public hearing.

Commissioner Paulson
moved to adopt Commissioner Long’s suggestion to modify Condition No.
11 to read that the Prices need not repair the swale until such time
as the legal impediments preventing them from doing so are removed.

Commissioner Long
asked to amend the motion to add an additional sentence to say "Compliance
with this condition shall not be required until such time, if any, that
all legal impediments are removed and the Accettas grant reasonable
access to their property for the purpose of carrying out this condition."

City Attorney Lynch
suggested an alternative to Commissioner Long’s suggestion, which would
read "This condition shall be satisfied as to any portion of the
swale that is located on the applicant’s property and the elimination
of any legal impediments to perform the work on the upslope neighbor’s
property."

Commissioner Long
agreed with City Attorney Lynch’s suggestion but felt that additional
wording be added to require that the Accettas grant reasonable access
to their property as determined by staff for the purpose of allowing
the repair remain.

City Attorney Lynch
agreed.

Commissioner Paulson
amended his motion to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-43 to amend Condition
No. 11 by adding the wording "This condition shall be satisfied
as to any portion of the swale that is located on the applicant’s property
and the elimination of any legal impediment to perform the work on the
upslope neighbor’s property and that the Accetta’s grant reasonable
access to their property as determined by staff for the purpose of allowing
the repair." Seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. Approved, (6-0).

At 8:00 p.m. the
Planning Commission adjourned into a closed session until 8:45 p.m.

City Attorney Lynch
stated that in the closed session she had reported to the Planning Commission
the status of litigation of the two items and no action was taken.

PUBLIC
HEARINGS (CONT)

Chairman Lyon felt that item 8 would most likely be a short item and felt
it should be heard before item no. 3. The Planning Commission agreed.

8.
Planning Case No. ZON2001-00105: Arik Abdalian 30025 Cachan Place

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report. He briefly summarized
the past approvals granted for the project and the current request.
He stated that the request to increase the height of the retaining wall
was necessary to meet building code requirements but does not allow
any further expansion of the use of the site. He stated that staff felt
it was an appropriate amendment with the inclusion of the revised conditions
of approval as suggested by staff. Mr. Fox stated that the City Council
had imposed several conditions on the project regarding the use of the
lower level, crawl space, and restoration of the rear slope. He explained
that staff had advised the applicant on several occasions that he must
comply with these conditions and as of this meeting the only condition
that staff had verified complete was the second access to the crawl
space had been eliminated and the remaining door reduced in height.
He stated a required covenant had been submitted that day and the applicant
was working on an inspection with Building and Safety to verify the
headroom clearance in the crawl space. Mr. Fox stated that staff had
added a condition of approval requiring all modifications be complete
before final inspection be made. In conclusion, he stated that staff
felt the current request was consistent with the Planning Commission’s
previous actions and recommended the current amendment be approved with
conditions.

Commissioner Mueller
asked if there was anything preventing the applicant from coming back
to the Planning Commission at a later date and request additional amendments
to the project.

Senior Planner Fox
stated there was nothing preventing the applicant from doing that.

Commissioner Mueller
asked if there was a way to add a condition that would prevent the applicant
from requesting further modifications until all previous conditions
of approval had been complied with.

Senior Planner Fox
stated it was possible, however if a situation occurred during the course
of construction where there was an imminent safety issue that needed
to be addressed and the project needed to be revised accordingly, the
applicant would be in a difficult situation if he could not request
a revision.

Commissioner Mueller
asked if the requested change to the retaining wall was to accommodate
the planter or was it to accommodate the four-foot wide walkway.

Senior Planner Fox
stated that it was staff’s understanding that the proposed change was
being requested because there was a building code issue that could not
be addressed with a three-foot tall wall.

Commissioner Paulson
asked if there were a way to approve the request, however condition
it so that permits will not be issued until the outstanding conditions
on the rest of the project have been complied with.

Director/Secretary
Rojas stated that a condition could be added that allows for approval,
however a building permit will not be issued until the specific outstanding
issues have been completed.

City Attorney Lynch
added that another alternative would be to deny the request without
prejudice so that the applicant can re-file the request after the items
have been completed.

Commissioner Cartwright
noted that the applicant was requesting this revision because it was
a requirement of the building code.

Chairman Lyon opened
the public hearing.

Arik Abdalian
(applicant) 30825 Marne Drive explained what he had done on the property
and that he was in the process of completing the survey of the backyard.
He stated he was doing all he could to meet the previous conditions
of approval.

Commissioner Paulson
asked Mr. Abdalian when he anticipated filing with the City the remedial
slope repair plans for the property.

Mr. Abdalian explained
that the survey was done but because of the recent rain the slope was
muddy and work could not commence.

Commissioner Paulson
asked staff if the applicant had submitted any type of repair plan to
the City.

Senior Planner Fox
stated that staff had asked Mr. Abdalian to provide a survey to show
the grade has been restored to the elevation that was on the original
plans. The condition requires that the slope be graded in compliance
with any requirements that were imposed by the building official. He
stated that the building official did not see any need for a formal
plan to be submitted.

There being no further
speakers, Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Mueller
asked to amend the motion to include a condition that the applicant
meets all previous conditions prior to issuance of a permit for the
retaining wall. He felt this would allow for the required slope repair
before the applicant would be allowed to build the retaining wall.

Commissioner Cartwright
stated that this request was to satisfy a requirement from the Building
and Safety Department and not something the applicant may have wanted
or chosen to do.

Commissioner Paulson
did not feel the proposed amendment would really accomplish anything
and did not accept the amendment.

The motion passed
on a vote of 4-2, with Commissioners Long and Mueller dissenting.

Commissioner Mueller
explained the he voted no because he felt that all of the conditions
of approval should be met before getting a building permit. Further,
he did not think this would be the last time the applicant would be
making a request for a revision to his project.

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report and briefly summarized
the history of the project. He stated that the plan submitted to the
City depicted only five vertical antenna masts on the roof. However,
as of today there were sixteen such support structures on the roof.
He stated that staff was able to verify there were unpermitted commercial
antenna inside the house. He stated that the Development Code requires
the approval of a Conditional Use Permit for all antennas regardless
of where they are located on a property. Therefore, the application
includes all existing antennas on the property as well as those proposed.
He stated there were six required findings to be made with a Conditional
Use Permit and staff believes the findings can be made with the imposition
of appropriate conditions. He stated that staff has reviewed the application
for consistency with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and believes
that conditional approval of the application will be consistent with
the Act. He noted that staff has received several letters of concern
and opposition to the project.

Chairman Lyon opened
the public hearing.

Larry Miner
29350 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu stated he was representing Don Schmitz
& Associates. He explained that the new antenna on the roof were
previously existing inside the residence. He stated that the application
before the City was to convert the existing amateur antennas to a commercial
antenna facility. Therefore, he did not feel the project has changed
since it was originally proposed. He stated there was no intent to house
antenna inside the building. He asked that the Commission consider modifying
pages of the conditions of approval relating to the restriction on the
number of antennas on the roof. He felt that limiting the applicant
to five antennas on the roof created a hardship and infringes upon his
client’s legal right to develop the antenna facility under the Amateur
Radio Antenna Ordinance. He felt the proposal before the Commission
was permitted by right if used for non-commercial amateur purposes and
the request for the Conditional Use Permit would simply allow the applicant
to transmit a commercial frequency through the antennas. He stated that
because of the nature of the antennas and the need to find a suitable
location any prohibition upon modification of the antennas would present
another burden upon the applicant and he asked that the condition restricting
any further improvements be eliminated. He stated the applicant would
be more than willing to paint the antennas to further screen or reduce
any visual impacts that are perceived as a result of this project.

Commissioner Long
asked if the applicant had any interest in any approval of the application
that would require any portion of the antennas to be located inside
the home.

Mr. Miner stated
the goal of the applicant was to conduct commercial transmission frequencies
from the home. He stated that the applicant did not want to have antennas
inside the house.

Commissioner Cartwright
asked Mr. Miner if he was requesting 20 antennas because they qualify
for approval under the Amateur Radio Antenna Guidelines in the Development
Code and then he would like those 20 antennas approved for commercial
purposes.

Mr. Miner stated
that the property owner, under his exemption rights, could have the
antenna array at his home as it exists today. He stated that the only
thing that had changed since the last Planning Commission hearing was
that the elevations had been modified to accurately reflect the property,
as it exists today.

Commissioner Cartwright
asked if the additional antennas were there to allow the applicant additional
amateur broadcasting or where they there as a part of the request for
approval of commercial use.

Mr. Miner stated
they were they for both reasons. He explained that the applicant was
an avid amateur radio buff and his intent was to pursue his hobby. He
stated the intent of the applicant was to exercise his right to develop
an antenna facility to conform to the requirements of the City’s code,
knowing that the facility was permitted by right if used for non-commercial
purposes. He stated he was before the Planning Commission so that some,
if not all, of the antennas could have the opportunity to convert to
commercial frequencies. He stated it was never the applicant’s intent
to mislead the Planning Commission and that the original application
specified 20 antennas as part of the project.

Commissioner Cartwright
asked why the antennas were moved from inside the residence to the roof
and why Mr. Kay was already using the antennas for commercial use before
receiving approval from the City.

Mr. Miner answered
that Mr. Kay had conducted commercial transmission from the property
without a Conditional Use Permit, however was no longer doing so. He
stated that the antenna that was generating commercial frequencies was
inside the residence and in order to keep the primary use as a single-family
residence it made sense to put the antenna on the roof.

Chairman Lyon asked
if Mr. Kay was presently living at the residence.

Mr. Miner responded
that at the present time the residence was undergoing renovation.

Chairman Lyon asked
when the last time Mr. Kay occupied the dwelling.

Mr. Miner stated
he would have to check with Mr. Kay, but felt it was approximately 1995.

Chairman Lyon asked
Mr. Miner if he was suggesting Mr. Kay was exercising his right to conduct
his hobby in a house he doesn’t live in.

Mr. Miner stated
Mr. Kay intends to re-occupy the property once the renovations are completed.

Commissioner Long
asked Mr. Miner if he knew what address appeared on Mr. Kay’s drivers
license and where he received his mail and if he knew when the renovations
would be completed.

Mr. Miner responded
that he did not know what address appeared on Mr. Kay’s drivers license
and he received his mail at his office in Van Nuys. He did not know
when the renovations would be completed.

Commissioner Long
asked if the structure had utilities, other than electricity, hooked
up to it.

Mr. Miner did not
know.

Commissioner Long
asked Mr. Miner if he had ever seen a doorknob on the door of the residence.

Mr. Miner stated
that he had not seen a doorknob but knew there was a dead bolt.

Bruce Bartram
407 W Harbor, San Pedro stated he was the attorney representing Mr.
Kay. He stated that he had spoken to the contractor at Mr. Kay’s residence
and had been informed that the renovations would be complete in approximately
1-½ months. He explained that Mr. Kay could not abide by the condition
that every new commercial antenna be placed inside the residence, as
he was planning to live in the house.

Commissioner Long
asked Mr. Barton if he knew if anyone had ever lived at the residence.

Mr. Bartram answered
that Mr. Kay lived at the house, but did not know the length of time.
He stated that the current status was that the residence was undergoing
renovation with an ancillary use of having an antenna array on top of
the roof.

Mr. Miner explained
that the antennas on the roof were similar to television antennas on
the roof.

Commissioner Vannorsdall
asked if there was going to be air conditioning units installed for
the antenna equipment.

Mr. Miner stated
that the room constructed does have extra cooling equipment installed.

Commissioner Paulson
asked if it was correct that the intent of Mr. Kay was to place 20 antennas
on the roof, of which all have the capability to be used for commercial
purposes and all interior antennas will be eliminated.

Mr. Miner stated
that was correct.

Chairman Lyon referred
to a letter from Bruce Barton dated November 8, 2001 stating that a
total of 20 radiating elements are proposed to be mounted to an existing
roof mounted antenna structure for use as an amateur, non-commercial
radio facility. He asked if the antennas were going to be used for commercial
or non-commercial purposes.

Mr. Miner answered
that the intent of the letter was to establish a project that would
be permitted by right, which is to conduct amateur non-commercial radio
transmissions. However, if the Conditional Use Permit were to be granted,
the applicant would then use the antennas for commercial purposes.

Don Schmitz
29350 Pacific Coast Hwy, Malibu, explained that the 20 radiating elements
on the roof as they are today are for strictly amateur ham radio operation.
They will not be converted to commercial use without proper entitlement
from the City. He stated that the dimensions, heights, location, and
length of the 20 radiating elements are exempt under the City code if
used for private purposes.

City Attorney Lynch
felt it was necessary to define some terms used, as part of the confusion
was that on the plans there were a number of large masts. She asked
if these were the masts or the radiating elements.

Mr. Schmitz answered
that those were the radiating elements, which were the items projecting
off of the roof by approximately 8 ½ feet.

City Attorney Lynch
asked if the antennas were the four or five projections that were fixed
to each of the 20 masts projecting from the roof, and if they were removed
from the masts the facility would not function properly.

Mr. Miner answered
that the projections in question were the transmit and receive components
of the antenna.

City Attorney Lynch
asked if these could be mounted on any number of things.

Mr. Miner stated
that was correct, but what he had tried to do in designing the project
was to conform to the code requirements relating to amateur facilities.

City Attorney Lynch
asked how many bedrooms were located at the residence and if any of
the bedrooms were located on the first floor of the residence.

Mr. Miner answered
that he thought there were four bedrooms and he did not know if there
were any bedrooms downstairs.

City Attorney Lynch
stated that assuming there were bedrooms downstairs one could continue
to locate antennas in the bedroom upstairs, since the antennas need
height in order to transmit and receive.

Mr. Miner stated
that there would be a loss of signal and degradation of the optimal
operation of the facility if the antennas were located inside the structure.

City Attorney Lynch
stated that since 1998 Mr. Kay has been broadcasting commercially from
the antennas located on the second story of the house behind the glass.

Mr. Miner said that
was his understanding.

City Attorney Lynch
asked that if Mr. Kay has been able to broadcast commercially from the
interior of the property, does Mr. Kay now wish to take the interior
antennas outside because he actually wants to move into the property
himself.

Mr. Miner answered
that Mr. Kay wanted to get the property in a state that will allow residency.

City Attorney Lynch
asked if Mr. Kay would be prepared to submit an affidavit that he was
going to move into the house, and by when.

Mr. Miner stated
he would have to ask Mr. Kay.

Mr. Bartram asked
why it made a difference as to when the house would be ready for occupancy
and when Mr. Kay would be moving in.

City Attorney Lynch
answered that a residential site has been commercialized and now the
applicant wanted to put more antennas on the roof in order to make it
habitable for occupancy when in fact, nobody has occupied the site since
at least 1998. Therefore, she was a little incredulous about Mr. Kay’s
true intent.

Commissioner Long
agreed that he was looking at an antenna facility, which he felt was
a stucco box that contains electronic equipment. He asked if there was
any evidence of residential use of the property.

Mr. Schmitz felt
the question was not what has occurred in the past, but what will be
occurring in the future. He stated that Mr. Kay has articulated to him
what he intends to do with the property and if there are conditions
that can be crafted that will ease the concerns of staff and the Planning
Commission. He stated that he would landscape the property and make
it nice for the neighborhood, he would paint the house, and have someone
living in the house full time.

Laura Ellison
26827 Fond du Lac Road stated there has been changes to the property
since she last addressed the Planning Commission, but what was apparent
was that this was a commercial business in a single family neighborhood.
She noted that staff had indicated the application was generally consistent
with the Wireless Communications Antenna Guidelines. She felt the application
was absolutely inconsistent with the guidelines. She stated that the
guidelines specify that installations on single-family residences are
to be discouraged. She asked the Planning Commission deny the application
and not allow it to continue. She was very concerned with a comment
from a previous speaker indicating that whatever the Planning Commission
may decide, the twenty antennas are to remain on the residence.

Commissioner Mueller
asked Ms. Ellison if anyone has ever lived at the applicant’s house
since she has lived in the neighborhood or if she had ever seen Mr.
Kay at the residence.

Ms. Ellison said
there had never been anyone living at the property since she had lived
in her home and she did not know what Mr. Kay looked like.

Jeff Jordan
26703 Indian Peak Road stated that since 1998 every two to three days
there was equipment being added or changed. He stated that he knows
one of the contractors at the applicant’s home and he has been taken
on a tour of the inside of the house. He explained that he has observed
an addition on the side of the house. He stated that there was 12-inch
conduit throughout the addition. He felt this addition was for business
purposes. He stated the house was not used as a single-family residence
and was a blight to the neighborhood.

Jennifer Jordan
26703 Indian Peak Road stated that they lived in a very nice family
community and it was frightening to have a house across the street that
nobody lives in. She stated that the house has been vacant for the 3-½
years she has lived in her home.

Larry Helfman
26716 Indian Peak Road stated that there were no neighbors he had spoken
to who could remember anyone ever living at the applicant’s property.
He stated that the Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether
the application would create a significant impact on the neighborhood.
He felt there was a significant impact to the neighborhood, as there
were workers coming and going constantly and he felt that the property
values in the neighborhood would drop drastically. He also stated that
the General Plan discouraged industrial and major commercial activities
and it was very clear that this application was a major commercial activity.

Don Schmitz felt
that granting a Conditional Use Permit to the applicant would provide
some measure of control to the City in regards to how the antenna array
on top of the house would be managed. He stated that the City could
put in conditions of approval limiting the hours and days that maintenance
workers can come to the property. He stated again that the array of
antennas existing on the top of the house is an array that is exempt
if it is for private use. He asked the conditions of approval be modified
pursuant to the scope of the application in that any future tweaking
of the antennas on the exempt array, as long as it is in the parameters
of what is exempt as established by the City, continues to be exempted.
He stated that he was very much in opposition to any future commercial
antennas inside the house which he felt was consistent with the concerns
of the neighbors that this be a residential structure. Finally, the
condition which calls for removal of antennas on top of the antenna
array beyond the five that staff recommends approval of is completely
unacceptable. He stated those remaining antennas are exempt if not used
for commercial purposes. He stated that if the City should deny the
request to have 20 commercial antennas, it would be the applicant’s
right to keep the 20 antennas for private purposes.

Commissioner Long
stated that the exempt array was exempt only if the Planning Commission
made a finding that the array of antennas was actually used for non-commercial
purposes. He asked Mr. Schmitz if he had any personal knowledge of what
any of the antennas were used for.

Mr. Schmitz answered
the only knowledge was what had been communicated to him from his client.
He stated that none of the antennas were being used for commercial purposes
today.

Commissioner Long
asked if the antennas were currently being used for non-commercial purposes.

Mr. Schmitz answered
that Mr. Kay had asserted to him that they are being used for non-commercial
purposes.

Chairman Lyon closed
the public hearing.

RECESS
AND RECONVENE

At 10:35 p.m. the Commission took a short recess to 10:50 p.m. at which
time they reconvened.

CONTINUED
BUSINESS (CONT)

Chairman Lyon began by stating this application was very difficult for
the Planning Commission. He explained that the Planning Commission has
an obligation to the residents of the City to uphold the General Plan
and to retain the environment that the residents came here for. He felt
this application appeared to be a commercial endeavor embedded in a
residential neighborhood. He questioned the credibility of many of the
statements made during the public hearing. He also questioned whether
the antenna as currently described is exempt from the Development Code.
He felt there was confusion over the definitions of antenna support
structures, masts, and radiating elements.

Commissioner Paulson
noted that when the application was originally submitted depicting five
antenna masts with four radiating elements on each mast staff determined
that it was exempt from CEQA. He asked staff if the current plan was
still exempt from CEQA.

City Attorney Lynch
felt that the issue of CEQA should be looked at again, as the visual
impact that was being created by at least 15 more masts has changed
the entire appearance of the project.

Commissioner Cartwright
asked staff if the application is for 20 antennas on the roof.

Senior Planner Fox
stated that the original plan submitted was for 20 antennas and the
plans depicted 5 antenna masts with 4 antenna radiating elements per
mast.

Commissioner Cartwright
asked if the Development Code allowed for unlimited antennas on a roof
to be used for amateur purposes, as long as they don’t exceed 12 feet
high and 6 feet in length.

Chairman Lyon stated
that one could not put an unlimited number of antennas on a roof. He
stated that under the definition of exempt antennas there was a provision
that two antennas not exceeding 12 feet in height and 6 feet in length
could be placed on a roof. He felt that these two antennas corresponded
to two of the masts on the current plan.

City Attorney Lynch
stated there was the additional exemption for the television type of
antenna. Therefore, one could presumably have the two exempt assemblies
plus the two television antennas for a total of four.

Commissioner Cartwright
asked if the 16 additional antennas were then considered part of the
application.

Senior Planner Fox
answered that from staff’s perspective the additional 16 antennas were
not part of the application.

Commissioner Cartwright
stated that the Code allowed for the approval of commercial antennas
in a single-family residence if it does not alter the character of the
neighborhood. He felt the Planning Commission would have to determine
if this was a single-family residence.

Commissioner Long
referred to the draft resolution page 3, section 1. He felt that there
should be a section A added that states the Planning Commission finds
that this application applies only to five antennas that actually existed
and were depicted in photographs in the application and that the other
antennas do not fall within an exemption and are not the subject of
this application. He also felt the Commission should modify post finding
A where it says there is existing foliage which screens the roof mounted
antenna. He felt it should say the existing foliage does not adequately
screen the roof-mounted antennas from the surrounding residences. However
conditioning approval upon removal of all antenna facilities to the
interior of the house eliminates any adverse visual impacts.

City Attorney Lynch
suggested allowing the two antennas that look like television antennas
to remain, as there was an exemption for two of that type of antenna.

Commissioner Long
suggested stating that other than those two, the others are not exempt
and should be moved inside the structure.

Commissioner Paulson
asked if the applicant would have to come to the Planning Commission
to request any additional exterior antennas, if the antennas were to
be used for amateur purposes.

City Attorney Lynch
stated that the condition of approval would say that no additional exterior
antennas would be allowed. Therefore, if any additional non-commercial
antennas were to be added they would have to added to the interior of
the property or make the request for a modification before the Planning
Commission.

Commissioner Long
suggested changing Section D of the Fact Findings to state that the
existent home is not consistent with this designation and use of the
existing antenna, support structure and array for non-commercial purposes
is not permitted by right as an accessory use.

City Attorney Lynch
felt it was important to redefine what exists, as what exists has changed
substantially between today and when staff first drafted the Resolution.

Commissioner Long
stated that what is existing should be defined and then add the language
he suggested. He added a sentence saying that compliance with the conditions
set forth herein will render the existing home consistent with this
designation. He felt a statement should be added that the property is
not currently used as a residence and has not been used as a residence
for at least five years. He added that the property in its current condition
has altered the residential character of the neighborhood, however compliance
with the conditions of approval set forth herein will mitigate these
otherwise adverse findings of fact.

Commissioner Long
then referred to page 4 of the draft resolution, finding D and suggested
deleting the language between "although the conversion" through
the end of the sentence.

City Attorney Lynch
suggested that to make sure all the changes are incorporated, the Planning
Commission should adjourn the meeting to possibly Thursday, November
15, for a short meeting to adopt the final resolution. The Planning
Commission decided that Thursday, November 15, at 6:30 p.m. in the Community
Room at City Hall would be the best time.

In reviewing Exhibit
A, City Attorney Lynch stated that Condition No. 2 should be changed
to state some roof mounted and some interior antennas. Also, no additional
modifications to the exterior antennas without approval of the Director
of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement.

Commissioner Long
suggested a condition requiring a 6-month review. The Commission agreed.

City Attorney Lynch
noted that Condition No. 18 would have the additional language that
the applicant must paint the house within 60 days of the day of the
approval, maintain the landscaping at all times, and maintain window
coverings on windows facing the street.

Commissioner Long
noted that everywhere the Resolution referred to "existing antenna"
would have to be modified.

Commissioner Long
moved to approve the project as conditioned, subject to the final review
of the Draft Resolution and Conditions of Approval to be prepared by
the staff and City Attorney and submitted to the Planning Commission
at the adjourned meeting, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. The motion
was unanimously approved, (6-0).

City Attorney Lynch
stated that the adjourned meeting would be held in the Community Room
at City Hall on Thursday, November 15 at 6:30 p.m. She stated that the
purpose of the meeting was to approve the resolution and any member
of the public who had comments regarding the verbiage of the resolution
could make their comments at that time.

ITEMS
TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS

Chairman Lyon stated that Vice Chairman Clark had indicated he would
like to present a report to the Planning Commission on the status of
the neighborhood compatibility sub-committee.

Also present were
Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner
Fox, and City Attorney Lynch.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Without objection,
the agenda was approved as presented.

COMMUNICATIONS

City Attorney Lynch
reported that a revised Resolution had been distributed to the Planning
Commission and the applicant’s representative. She asked that the Planning
Commission take action on the revised Resolution.

City Attorney Lynch stated that there were two speakers, however the
public hearing had been closed at the last meeting. She explained that
the speakers could comment on the text of the Resolution, as this meeting
was to adopt the Resolution memorializing the Commission’s actions at
the last meeting.

City Attorney Lynch
stated that, other than changes in language, the only substantive change
made was to add a definition of the parameters of the television antennas
so that they suddenly did not become huge antennas.

Chairman Lyon opened
the public hearing.

Larry Helfman
26716 Indian Peak Road stated that page 1 of Exhibit A described four
antennas that are allowed, two of which are described as TV type antennas.
He thought the Planning Commission had agreed at their last meeting
that only two antennas for commercial use on the exterior of the property
would be allowed. He also noted that in Section 1 of the Resolution,
paragraph 2 grants the property owner the authority to have as many
antennas as he wants inside the house. He was not sure that was the
intent of the Planning Commission. In reviewing the findings, he discussed
the occasional service vehicle traffic that was discussed. He stated
that the testimony given at the public hearing was that there were adverse
impacts to the neighborhood in terms of service and maintenance vehicles.
He discussed Section 1 – F which discussed the General Plan and stated
he did not understand what the finding was. He did not know what evidence
was presented that this application would benefit any public entity
other than the applicant.

Larry Miner
29350 Pacific Coast Hwy Malibu, noted on page 1 of the Resolution a
City’s reference to the exemption granted by staff for the facility
when the antenna changed. He felt there might be some confusion as to
which point in time the term "existing antennas" was meant
to refer to.

Chairman Lyon closed
the public hearing.

Chairman Lyon suggested
reviewing the Resolution and Conditions of Approval.

City Attorney Lynch
explained that the reason staff did not attempt to restrict the use
of the antennas on the interior versus the exterior of the house was
because there was no way to monitor this type of restriction. She explained
that it was only possible to establish the coordinates from where the
transmissions emanate from, and it cannot be determined which antennas
the transmissions are coming from. Further, because staff could not
periodically access the interior of the house, staff chose not to limit
the placement of any antennas inside the house on the lower floor versus
the upper floor, leaving the placement inside the residence to the discretion
of the applicant. She stated that FCC regulations do control the maximum
amount of radio frequency emission that can occur from a property.

Commissioner Long
felt there would be some limits to the number of antennas in the interior
to the extent necessary to comply with the conditions of approval and
the Building Code. He stated that the number of antennas will be defined
by conditions that establish that the primary use of the property will
be residential.

Commissioner Mueller
was concerned that the City might develop conditions that could not
be enforced, but thought there may be techniques that the City’s radio
consultant, Dr. Richter, was not aware of that could pinpoint where
the signal was emanating from. He thought the Planning Commission had
decided to try to keep the commercial antennas inside the house, as
the City code allowed for two amateur antennas as well as two television
antennas on the outside of the house. He did not want to see the applicant
benefit financially from putting the commercial antennas on the roof.

Commissioner Long
recalled a discussion from the last Planning Commission meeting that
there would be the removal of commercial use from the roof in exchange
for granting the Conditional Use Permit to allow commercial use in the
interior of the structure. He recognized that ultimately there may be
problems in enforcement as to whether the existing technology allows
the City to enforce the condition in a cost effective way. He felt the
condition should be written as the Planning Commission intended and
perhaps acknowledge the condition may change due to financial constraints.

City Attorney Lynch
stated there was no evidence that there was ever any commercial use
of antennas on the roof. She stated there was evidence of commercial
use from the property, however the applicant has stated that the commercial
use was from the antennas on the interior of the building.

Chairman Lyon stated
he had no comments on the first three pages of the Resolution.

Commissioner Long
commented that Section 1-a should be reworded to say: "For the
purposes of this determination on the subject application and throughout
this resolution . . . ." The Commission agreed.

Commissioner Long
suggested that Section 1-b could say "Although there is existing
foliage on adjacent properties and rights of way, this foliage does
not adequately screen the existing roof mounted antenna support structure
and array or the additional antennas added by the applicant subsequent
to June 21, 2001 from view."

Commissioner Long
then commented on Section 1-c. He suggested adding the sentence "Any
adverse affects of any additional traffic are mitigated by the conditions
of approval contained in this Resolution."

Chairman Lyon disagreed
with the statement in Section 1-f that the commercial antennas would
provide a service to the City residents. He felt it was more likely
a service provided to people who work in Los Angeles County.

City Attorney Lynch
agreed that it does not currently provide a service to the City. However
the concern that she had was that Mr. Kay currently has 153 commercial
applications pending with the FCC and if any are used for the Nextel
Direct Connect type service, that was the type of personal wireless
services envisioned by the 1996 Telecommunications Act and are services
that could be provided to the public. She stated it was hard to know
what type of services were envisioned by the applicant. She stated this
was a finding that could help the City to show the City was trying to
accommodate those types of services under the Telecommunications Act.

Chairman Lyon then
noted in Section 1-f asked if language could be added that says "No
evidence has been provided indicating that the current owner has ever
resided at this property." At the end of the paragraph he suggested
taking out the word "eliminating".

Commissioner Long
had a comment on Section 1-j. He stated that depending on how the Commission
was going to resolve the issue of commercial antennas being on the outside,
the wording should read "By permitting some of the existing antennas
to remain on the roof of the residence and by permitting commercial
antennas to be located in the interior."

Chairman Lyon asked
what was wrong with allowing commercial frequencies to emanate from
the two antennas permitted on the roof.

Commissioner Paulson
stated that it goes back to the basic premise of what was the purpose
of the two antennas under the code.

City Attorney Lynch
stated that the issue being litigated in the Abrams case was Mr. Abrams
contention that the conversion of his exterior amateur radio antenna
radio structure to commercial use, in and of itself, ought not trigger
any change that would interest the City.

Commissioner Long
added that the City was concerned about applicants lying to the City
as to whether the use of their antennas for amateur or commercial uses.

Chairman Lyon stated
he did not have any problems with Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 and noted
a small typo in Section 6.

In reviewing Exhibit
A, Chairman Lyon suggested changing the first line in No. 2 to read
"This approval is for the use of the limited roof mounted and interior
antennas."

Chairman Lyon also
suggested adding, "up to four" before "each of the two
masts may have antenna fixed thereon".

City Attorney Lynch
added "which shall be used solely for non-commercial purposes"
should be added.

Commissioner Long
suggested adding a new paragraph after the first sentence of paragraph
2 which stated "The commercial use of the property is conditioned
upon the following modifications to the roof mounted equipment which
shall be used solely for amateur purposes:" and then continue with
the modifications, which is the rest of the paragraph.

In a discussion
regarding the regulation of the commercial antennas, City Attorney Lynch
stated that in addition to the enforcement issue the City was walking
into the potential argument that it was going too far under the Telecommunications
Act and PRB 1 and the balance that has to be made under PRB 1. She explained
that under PRB 1 the City has to use the least restrictive means possible
to regulate amateur antennas.

Commissioner Long
did not think the City was restricting the amateur use, only conditioning
the commercial use. He felt the restriction of the amateur use was purely
incidental and anytime an applicant wanted the full exemption they were
entitled to under the Code, all they had to do was switch off the commercial
use.

Chairman Lyon asked
again what was wrong with allowing the applicant to use the roof-mounted
antennas for commercial versus amateur frequencies.

City Attorney Lynch
answered that she did not know, and from the neighbors perspective there
would be no visual aesthetic difference.

Commissioner Long
felt that this would be encouraging a loophole and every time someone
came in and stated they were an amateur radio operator and had two amateur
antennas, then could make them commercial with a flip of a switch. He
felt that this was encouraging people to lie to the Planning Commission
and the City.

Commissioner Mueller
stated that the Planning Commission has already voted on how to handle
this application and this meeting was to be held to check the language
of the Resolution and Conditions of Approval. He did not think the Planning
Commission should now change their decision.

Commissioner Long
stated that the City Attorney was being cautious, as she appropriately
should be. He felt he would like to take a stand on this type of situation
unless the City Attorney’s advice was that the standing being taken
is unreasonable, unwarranted, unjustified, or dangerous. He felt the
City Attorney’s advice was that her preference would be that a more
cautious route would be something different.

City Attorney Lynch
agreed.

Chairman Lyon concluded
that the Planning Commission’s desire was then to let stand what was
in the Resolution and Conditions of Approval.

Chairman Lyon made
minor word changes to the last sentence of paragraph 2.

Chairman Lyon noted
Condition No. 7 to read "May be retained or erected pursuant to
this approval." He also added the language "The applicant
shall obtain a building permit and any other approval required by the
building department to modify or construct the masts and attached antenna."

Chairman Lyon noted
a modification to condition 12 to change the word "any" to
"all".

Commissioner Paulson
requested that "existing horizontal support structure" be
added to the condition.

Chairman Lyon asked
that in condition 16 the word "additional" be deleted from
line 3.

Chairman Lyon asked
if, in condition 18, it was reasonable to require that there must be
interior window coverings on all windows visible from the road when
the City does not require that from vacant homes in the community.

Commissioner Paulson
agreed, and felt it was selective enforcement.

The Commission agreed
to remove the condition.

Chairman Lyon also
noted that the third line of the condition specified that the residence
shall be occupied by the applicant. He felt that should be changed to
owner, as in some situations the applicant might be the applicant or
contractor or someone chosen by the owner. The Commission agreed to
the change.

Chairman Lyon noted
word slight word changes to conditions 20, and 21. He also noted in
condition no. 22 that the word "within" 6 months should be
changed to "at" approximately 6 months.

Commissioner Long
moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as amended, seconded by Commissioner
Mueller. (5-0).

Director/Secretary
Rojas distributed one item of correspondence for Agenda item no. 1 and
two letters received at the pc@rpv.com address,
which he stated that he had responded to.

Director/Secretary
Rojas congratulated Vice Chairman Clark on his election to the City
Council and stated that he looked forward to working with him as a City
Council member.

Chairman Lyon recognized
and congratulated Vice Chairman Clark on his recent election to the
City Council.

The Commissioners
reported that they had visited the sites for the agenda items and had
met with the neighbors and/or applicants at the sites.

NEW
BUSINESS

4.
Neighborhood Compatibility Sub-Committee Report

Vice Chairman Clark gave a brief history and the reason for the formation
of the Neighborhood Compatibility Sub-Committee, which was to improve
public awareness of the City’s neighborhood compatibility criteria.
He explained that a draft public brochure has been prepared, but was
not yet suitable for presentation to the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Paulson
agreed that the brochure was not yet ready, but once completed he felt
it would be a very useful tool for the residents in the community for
the understanding of the process and requirements.

Vice Chairman Clark
stated the two sub-committee members would not be able to complete their
task before leaving the Planning Commission, but would like to see the
Commission finish this brochure with staff.

Chairman Lyon suggested
having staff complete the brochure and present it to the Planning Commission
when they are satisfied it is ready for review.

Director/Secretary
Rojas felt staff had clear direction from the sub-committee and could
present something to the Planning Commission at the second meeting in
January.

The Commission agreed
to allow staff to complete the brochure based on the sub-committee’s
direction and present the Planning Commission with a final draft for
further review at the second meeting in January.

At this point Vice
Chairman Clark read a memo dated November 27, 2001 on the subject of
the resignation from the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission. The
memo stated that Vice Chairman Clark would, in light of his recent election
to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, resign from the Planning Commission
effective November 27, 2001 at 8:00 p.m. He stated he held his colleagues
on the Planning Commission in very high esteem and were outstanding
representatives of the community and thanked the Planning Department
staff for their excellent work and support.

The Commissioners
thanked Vice Chairman Lyon for his had work and professionalism during
his time on the Planning Commission and wished him well.

Senior Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. He stated that
the item was requested by the applicant to clarify the intent of condition
19 adopted by the Commission at the October 9, 2001 meeting. He explained
that at the public hearing the project architect expressed his disagreement
with the proposed condition to redesign a flat roof over the living
room and entry foyer to a pitched roof, and had asked that the condition
be removed. He stated the Commission had approved the project with no
specific direction to delete the condition. He concluded by recommending
the Planning Commission affirm condition no. 19 thereby requiring the
applicant re-design the proposed flat roof over the living room and
foyer to a pitched roof.

Commissioner Long
asked if the Planning Commissioners recalled any further discussion
regarding the condition, beyond what was reflected in the minutes.

Commissioner Paulson
stated that he felt the minutes accurately reflected what was discussed
at the meeting, in that the issue was raised and the applicant stated
his objection to the condition, however no mention or direction was
given by the Planning Commission regarding the condition.

Chairman Lyon read
from the minutes the motion to adopt the Resolution and felt the motion
indicated the Planning Commission intended to modify the Resolution
in accordance with the suggested elevation change.

Commissioner Paulson
did not think the Planning Commission specifically addressed the condition
in question.

Commissioner Long
felt that normally if there was an applicant disagreeing with a condition
there would be something in the minutes reflecting what the Commission
felt about it.

Chairman Lyon agreed
it was an oversight on the part of the Planning Commission not to address
that specific concern.

Chairman Lyon opened
the public hearing.

Larry Peha
67 14th Street Hermosa Beach stated he was the project architect.
He displayed a photo board and stated the center picture was a rendering
of the proposed house. He pointed out the different elevations of the
roof and foyer area of the proposed residence. He explained that the
other pictures on the board were of homes on Palos Verdes Drive South
that have flat roofs.

The Commission had
a brief discussion on the purpose of this hearing and Commissioner Long
stated his interpretation was that if the Planning Commission concludes
the condition was properly considered and included, then the Commission
should reaffirm their decision via minute order. However, if the Planning
Commission concludes that there was or may have been an error then a
noticed hearing would be required to actually address the merits of
the applicant’s request.

Chairman Lyon asked
Mr. Peha if there was any compelling reason he could not comply with
the condition.

Mr. Peha stated
that the reason they asked for the condition to be deleted was because
there was a commanding ocean view from this portion of the house and
he would like to design some tall windows in that area. He explained
that a sloped roof at that area would cut down on the height of the
windows allowed.

Chairman Lyon asked
if there was a compromise that could be suggested.

Mr. Peha stated
he was concerned about putting something half way there which may look
worse.

Chairman Lyon closed
the public hearing.

Commissioner Long
moved to notice a new public hearing to re-hear item no. 19 only on
the basis that the Planning Commission did not intentionally include
the condition in the Resolution, based on a review of the minutes, seconded
by Commissioner Mueller.

Chairman Lyon felt
this was an oversight by the Planning Commission and asked the staff
if they knew of any hardship to the applicant if the item were to be
renoticed and heard at a subsequent meeting.

Director/Secretary
Rojas was not aware of any hardship created other than time. He stated
that a condition should not be removed without noticing the interested
parties.

Chairman Lyon re-opened
the public hearing.

Mr. Peha stated
that the Director had mentioned that if the revision was considered
minor then there would not be a need for a new public hearing. He asked
if this could be considered a minor revision.

Chairman Lyon closed
the public hearing.

Director/Secretary
Rojas clarified that the Code stated that if the action resulting from
this interpretation hearing results in a minor modification, the revision
could be done by minute order. He noted that in the staff report, staff
recommends that the removal of the condition be considered a substantive
revision, thus requiring the condition be brought back at a duly noticed
public hearing. He stated that the Commission could determine that this
is a minor modification and remove the condition.

Commissioner Lyon
asked if there was any reasonable expectation that any member of the
public might object to leaving the roof as a flat roof.

Director/Secretary
Rojas did not think there was previous public testimony directed at
that specific issue.

Chairman Lyon felt
this was a relatively minor issue in context with the entire project
and felt it should be considered a minor modification.

Commissioner Paulson
asked when this would most likely be heard before the Planning Commission
if a public hearing were required.

Director/Secretary
Rojas stated there was a required 15-day notice period, and since there
is only one meeting in December, it would not be heard until January.

Commissioner Cartwright
stated that he had a concern about the condition and questioned staff
as to why they did not think a flat roof was appropriate.

Senior Planner Mihranian
answered that there was a concern with the structure’s visual appearance
from Palos Verdes Drive South because of the topography of the lot.
He stated that any structure on the lot would be highly visible from
Palos Verdes Drive South and that this condition was recommended as
a way to soften the structure’s appearance from Palos Verdes Drive South.

Commissioner Mueller
stated that he still had several questions for staff regarding the issue
but would rather wait and ask those questions at a publicly noticed
hearing. He was concerned that there may be members of the public who
were concerned about the appearance or neighborhood compatibility of
the house who may not be present at this meeting.

Commissioner Long
repeated his motion. The motion passed (3-2) with Commissioner Cartwright
and Chairman Lyon dissenting.

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report. He explained that at
the last hearing on October 23 the developer presented a revised project
proposal that included smaller homes with lower ridgeline elevations
and increased setbacks. Since the last meeting staff has completed the
view analysis of the revised silhouettes for the homes, the developer
has prepared a landscape plan for the tract, and staff has revised the
initial study of draft Mitigated Negative Declaration to reflect the
revised project description and the inclusion of the General Plan amendment
as part of the proposal. He stated that based upon the revised project,
staff believes that none of the homes will create significant view impairment.
However, based upon comments by residents staff is recommending the
inclusion of a condition that will limit the height of homes. He discussed
the landscape plan and suggested amending the conditions of approval
regarding the CC&R’s to make specific reference to the homeowners
association and the water company respective maintenance responsibilities
for landscaping on the site. Mr. Fox explained there was still the apparent
inconsistency in the General Plan between the land use designation and
the RS-4 zoning designation that has been on the site for many years.
Therefore, staff is recommending that the approval of the proposed project
would be contingent upon the City Council’s approval of a general plan
amendment that would designate the portion of the site proposed for
residential development as residential 2 – 4 dwelling units per acre.
In conclusion, Mr. Fox stated that staff believes the revised project
is consistent with the required findings of approval for the Tentative
Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, and Grading Permit. He noted that
the Planning Commission’s action on the application would be advisory
only, with final decision to be made by the City Council. As such, the
matter is currently agendized for the City Council meeting of December
4. Although staff has prepared draft resolutions for the Commission’s
consideration, the Commission is not obligated to take action simply
because the matter has already been agendized to the City Council. He
stated that staff could reagendize the matter for City Council consideration
at a later meeting.

Chairman Lyon opened
the public hearing.

Kurt Nelson
(representing JCC Homes) 3480 Torrance Blvd., Torrance. He briefly recapped
the changes made to the project since starting on September 25. He noted
the reduction in the home size, the homes on lots 4, 5, and 6 have been
redesigned to become single story residences, increased the side yard
setbacks on the easterly boundary to approximately 26 to 28 feet, and
lowered the proposed residence on lot 9 by 8 feet to be 16 feet above
grade. He felt that he could lower the pad of the lot by another foot,
as requested by staff. Mr. Nelson used a display board to show the layout
of the proposed project and how it impacts the surrounding neighborhoods.
He stated that he had spoken with a representative from California Water
Service Company who had indicated they would have no objection to a
condition that would require them or them working with the new HOA so
that the existing foliage is maintained. He gave a brief overview of
the proposed landscape plan and how this landscape would address the
view concerns. Mr. Nelson stated that he has provided the revision to
the site plan and landscape plan to staff for any residents to review,
has met with a number of the homeowners, and has attempted to meet with
others.

Craig Webber
950 Santiago Rd., Long Beach stated he was the landscape architect for
the project. He distributed a board which he felt better displayed the
proposed landscape plan.

Harold Turley
5814 Scotwood Drive stated his objection to the project has been the
size and location of the proposed structures. His preference would be
for the project to go away, however short of that he stated he would
find himself agreeable to the project as it has been modified if two
specific issues can be handled to his satisfaction. The first issue
was his channel and island view, which is about 30 degrees. He asked
that the entire view lane be flagged at the proposed height of 16 feet
prior to the approval of the project. He would like to be able to completely
see the impact as opposed to trying to guess at it. The second request
he made was for a provision for future events that would affect his
views, such as trees and shrubs, that may grow to exceed 16 feet. He
felt it was important that this be done in such a fashion so that the
enforcement not fall to him as the homeowner. He did not want to be
burdened with the process of filing papers with the City or having to
sue his neighbors.

Chairman Lyon stated
there was flagging existing for lots 4, 5, and 6. He asked Mr. Turley
what area he was asking be flagged. He stated that the area flagged
represents the highest view obstruction and there was no higher ridgeline
that was not already flagged.

Mr. Turley did not
realize that the existing flagging represented the highest ridgelines.

Leo Lawson
5827 Sunmist Drive stated that the approximate 500 homes in the surrounding
area of the project have to use the intermediate school grounds as a
park. His concern is now that the school is in use, there is not any
green space for use as a park. He proposed the 4.99 acres become a park
to service the Rancho Palos Verdes residents of the area. He suggested
the California Water Service Company could sell the land at a discount
to the City so that the City could then build a park. He distributed
photographs taken from his home which showed the ridgelines of the proposed
residences. He noted that the land behind his home where these residences
were to be built slopes up 35 feet. He stated that adding another 16
feet on the slope will then have him looking at 50 feet of mortar and
dirt. He stated the proposed homes look down into his daughter’s bedroom
window and plate glass window in the master bathroom. He felt the loss
of privacy would result in a loss of property value to his home. He
felt the California Water Service Company has violated the public trust
that has been held with this community by the inception of the sub-division.
He felt the integrity of the reservoir could be compromised by grading
and the additional weight of the proposed homes. He did not think the
developer had done any geologic studies to ensure the integrity of the
reservoir and requested the Commission require the developer do such
soil studies to ensure the south wall of the reservoir not be compromised.
He felt the 4.99 acres needs to be under the control of the City so
that it will be protected against any terrorist attempt to poison the
water or affect the integrity of the reservoir. He requested the Planning
Commission do a feasibility study researching the possibility of the
Water Company selling the 4.99 acres at a discount for the development
of a park.

Commissioner Long
began by stating that the Planning Commission has no authority to purchase
anything. He asked Mr. Lawson if any of the trees in the photograph
distributed were on his property.

Mr. Lawson answered
that all of the trees were on the California Water Service Company property.

Commissioner Long
asked Mr. Lawson what he would do if tomorrow the Water Service Company
decided they didn’t want the trees and cut them all down.

Mr. Lawson answered
that he would enjoy a view and would not have people peering down into
his daughter’s bedroom. He added that he realized the Planning Commission
did not have the authority to purchase property, however they did have
the ability to present recommendations to the City Council.

Chairman Lyon stated
that he did not agree with much of what Mr. Lawson said. He stated the
job of the Planning Commission was to address applications before them
from the property owner. He stated that no Commissioner had a right
to tell a property owner what they wished they would do with the property.
He felt the applicant was trying to do everything he could to try to
enhance Mr. Lawson’s privacy. He stated that the California Water Service
site was at one time a ball field and the reason the ball field was
taken away was because of objections from the neighbors in Mesa Palos
Verdes to the noise the ball field created. Therefore, he did not agree
that a park was a useful addition to the neighborhood.

Commissioner Long
added that the Planning Commission has never withheld a permit application
in order to compel the property owner to sell the land to the City at
a discount, and the suggestion to do so is a very dangerous suggestion.

Commissioner Cartwright
asked staff if there has been geologic studies done on the issue of
the integrity of the water reservoir.

Senior Planner Fox
stated that one of the required elements for a complete application
for a subdivision is that there has to be geology reports submitted
and approved by the City’s geotechnical consultant. He stated that there
were several reports submitted to the City and approved and the city’s
consultant has visited the site and is aware of the underground reservoir.
He stated that there will be additional geologic reports submitted before
any grading or building can begin.

Carolynn Tuttle
29541 Oceanport Road distributed a photograph she had taken to the Planning
Commission and stated that her view would be significantly impacted.
She stated that the flags up now are only along the top of the front
of the ridgeline and do not clearly show how her view will be impacted.
She requested that the ridgeline be continued so she could access her
view impact. She agreed that lot 9 should be lowered one more foot,
but felt it could be lowered even further. She asked about the chimney
in the plans and noted that it was now in the position to cause the
greatest impact on her view of Catalina. She requested that in addition
to flagging the entire ridgeline, the developer also flag where the
chimney will be located. She stated she was still very alarmed that
the City would considered placing expensive homes on the top of a large
water reservoir.

Ray Mathys
5738 Whitecliff Drive stated that an approximate 20-foot landscape buffer
was proposed by the applicants to provide a privacy screen between the
homes in the proposed development and the existing homes in Mesa Verde
that back up to the project. He felt this proposal could work provided
that the landscaping is properly and continually maintained in accordance
with the approved landscape plan. He stated that in order to do so,
the HOA must have the authority to enter onto the land. He stated that
the most effective way to do this was to include the 20-foot strip of
land located along the east and south side of the tract as part of the
common area and owned by the homeowners association. He acknowledged
that the problem with this approach was that it would reduce the size
of the lot adjoining the common area. Therefore, an easement dedicated
to the HOA delineating the bounds of the proposed landscape buffer area
that would provide the Association with the right to enter onto the
area for maintenance purposes would provide the same assurances that
the work could and would be performed. Such an easement would be shown
on a recorded tract map and made enforceable through the Conditional
Use Permit and the Association recorded legal document.

Linda Navarro
12 Seaview Drive, Rolling Hills Estates, stated she was the president
of Seaview Villas HOA and represented 68 homeowners. She explained that
the only concern of the HOA was lot 9, which is adjacent to their property.
She stated that some of the previous concerns have already been met,
however they still requested that the pad be lowered on lot 9 by 2 feet
rather than 1 foot. She also requested moving the home 15 feet from
the property line rather than the current 10 feet, as it was a privacy
issue.

James Demarais
stated he was a land use attorney representing some of the homeowners.
He noted that there was no current legal action pending and that they
were simply trying to work out an amiable solution to the matter. He
stated that the zoning was inconsistent with the General Plan. He read
a portion of a California Supreme Court case "Planning and zoning
law does not contemplate the General Plan to be amended to conform to
zoning ordinances. The tail does not wag the dog. The General Plan is
a charter to which the ordinances must conform." He further quoted:
"The unrestricted amendments of the General Plan to conform to
zoning changes destroy the General Plan as a tool for the comprehensive
development of the community as a whole." He stated that in this
case the General Plan designates the area as Infrastructure Facility.
He stated the zoning ordinances zones the area residential. Therefore,
he felt the zoning ordinance was invalid and the area was therefore
zoned Infrastructure Facility as defined by the General Plan. In addition,
he felt the environmental issues were unresolved. Primarily, he noted
the reservoir has a history of leakage and he did not think there has
been any articulation of the specific steps taken to maintain the integrity
of the reservoir. He stated that the according to the geology reports,
there seems to be an unresolved issue as to what the conclusion is regarding
the integrity of the reservoir. He felt that at this stage, no action
should be taken on this project and if any action should be taken it
should be that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the project.
He added that he had concerns regarding Brown Act issues. He noted that
there was a City Council hearing set for this project on December 7
and the Code provides for a 10-day appeal period. He felt due process
was being cut down.

Commissioner Long
asked Mr. Demarais if the Planning Commission conditions the approval
of the project on the City Council adopting an amendment to the General
Plan if that would then address his concerns.

Mr. Demarais answered
that the approach would address his concerns regarding the zoning inconsistency.

Commissioner Long
asked if the specific environmental concern was the proximity of the
homes to the reservoir.

Mr. Demarais stated
the homeowners particular concern was that at the current time the reservoir
was in a potentially dangerous condition and that this project poses
a serous threat to the health and safety of the community. He stated
he was asking for, at a minimum, a continuance in order to investigate
the environmental impact more seriously.

Bob Shirley
29635 Stonecrest Road acknowledged that JCC Homes has made efforts and
progress in dealing with height, view, and buffering issues. He did
not feel the density and setback issues had been dealt with. He asked
the Planning Commission recommend a minimum 1/3 acre or 14,000 square
foot lots so that the houses will not have the appearance of a Torrance
Anastasi type of project. He proposed a recommendation be made to enforce
the RS-4 setback requirements so the houses will not be right on top
of one another. He stated that when the developer reduced the house
size to single story he effectively increased the foundation size because
all of the living space is now on a single story. He also felt that
the developer’s environmental investigation was incomplete and inadequate
at this time. He was very concerned with the loss of his privacy and
property value. He further felt that the construction noise and dirt
would be intolerable to the surrounding neighborhoods.

Charles Joo
5840 Scotwood Drive also acknowledged the willingness of JCC Homes to
work with the neighbors. However, he felt more time was needed for the
neighbors and JCC homes to work out some of the outstanding issues and
asked that the Planning Commission continue the item to a later date.

Commissioner Cartwright
asked Mr. Joo to point out where his home was located.

Mr. Joo stated that
his home was right next to lot 9.

Commissioner Cartwright
asked Mr. Joo what his specific issues were.

Mr. Joo responded
that he had privacy issues concerning the project. He stated that from
his second story window he currently overlooked a vacant lot with little
traffic.

Commissioner Long
felt that Mr. Joo looked out over a tarred over area with carports and
pipes and a lot of trucks entering and leaving the property. He wondered
if having a home next to him would be more objectionable and cause more
traffic.

Mr. Joo stated he
did not mind the trucks coming in for the purpose of parking and that
was limited to certain hours.

Commissioner Cartwright
asked Mr. Joo what he would like to see done that would ensure his privacy.

Mr. Joo stated that
he was not arguing the right of the developer to build on their property.
He was simply stating that he was used to having a vacant lot next to
him. He stated he has a swimming pool that is right next to the proposed
private driveway, which concerned him.

Commissioner Cartwright
stated that there was nothing the Commission could do other than eliminate
the private road that would satisfy Mr. Joo’s concerns.

Mr. Joo stated that
eliminating the road would satisfy his concerns but he did not know
if that would satisfy his neighbor’s concerns.

Lois Larue
3136 Barkentine Road stated she opposed the development of 10 lots on
4.99 acres. She did not think there was adequate room to build 10 lots
on the site. She asked the Planning Commissioners to be visionaries
and not approve the project.

Greg Johnson
29643 Stonecrest Road indicated on the map where his property was located
and felt that there was not enough room between his house and the proposed
houses that back up to Stonecrest. He was concerned with privacy, screening,
and property values.

Commissioner Paulson
asked Mr. Johnson what the separation was between his home and his neighbor
to the side.

Mr. Johnson estimated
approximately 30 feet. He noted that he does not enjoy his yard from
the side yard but rather the backyard, which he considered his living
space.

RECESS
AND RECONVENE

At 9:50 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess to 10:00 p.m.
at which time they reconvened.

CONTINUED
BUSINESS (CONT)

Kurt Nelson (in rebuttal) discussed the chimney in relationship
to Mrs. Tuttle’s home. He stated he was willing to lower the grade of
the pad an additional foot and the chimney could be lowered or placed
in a location as long as it complied with the building code. He stated
he would work with Mrs. Tuttle regarding the chimney. Regarding the
issue of the reservoir, he stated he would like to have Mr. Jensen from
California Water Service address those issue. He felt there had been
a thorough review of the reservoir and added that he would not begin
the project until all additional soils testing is done in association
with the grading and foundations of the residences.

Commissioner Paulson
asked if there was any cut involved on the slopes on the back property
lines of lots 4, 5, and 6.

Mr. Nelson responded
that to his knowledge there would be no cut at that area. Mr. Nelson
stated he would address the privacy issues with Mr. Lawson but felt
his landscape plan would provide a permanent screening. Regarding the
zoning issue, Mr. Nelson felt that Commissioner Long’s suggestion to
condition the approval contingent upon the City Council’s determination
of a General Plan amendment was a good suggestion. He thanked Mr. Mathys
for his suggestions and felt a dedication easement with enforcement
rights was something that could and most likely would happen. He stated
that he would be willing to lower the pad of lot 9 one more foot, but
only if it was considered necessary. Mr. Nelson stated that the only
setback exception he was requesting was between two of his own houses.
He noted that in every other area he met or exceeded percentages of
coverage and setbacks. He stated that if Mr. Johnson has room on his
property, he would be more than willing to plant a big box tree so that
he can be comfortable. Mr. Nelson concluded by asking the Planning Commission
make a decision on his project, one way or another, at this meeting.

Don Jensen
stated he was the District Manager for the California Water Service
Company stated that there are currently 2 reservoirs underground at
the site. He stated that the walls of the reservoirs were built up to
24 inches in thickness and the life expectancy of these types of structures
are measured in half centuries. He also noted that the reservoir was
never filled above 95 percent or let below 45 percent. He stated that
as a professional he had no problem with the structural integrity of
the reservoirs.

Commissioner Cartwright
asked when the reservoir was built.

Mr. Jensen responded
that the reservoir was built in 1965.

Commission Cartwright
asked if there had ever been a situation at the site where the integrity
of the reservoir had been compromised.

Mr. Jensen answered
that there had not been any problems to his knowledge. He added that
there was a maintenance program in place and the reservoir was inspected
annually.

Commissioner Cartwright
asked if there were other reservoirs of this type on the peninsula.

Mr. Jensen answered
that there was one near the FAA radar site.

Chairman Lyon closed
the public hearing.

Commissioner Paulson
asked if reducing the pad of lot 9 an additional foot and changing the
location of the chimney would address the concerns of the affected residents.

Senior Planner Fox
did not think the chimney had any affect on the homes in Rolling Hills
Estates. He stated that staff had visited the site and did not think
there was much potential for privacy infringement, however lowering
the lot one foot couldn’t hurt. He did not think that lowering the lot
2 feet would allow much more gain for those residents. With respect
to the other side, he stated that the structure currently proposed was
16 feet in height, but in the interest of minimizing any potential view
impairment it seems reducing the pad lot one foot would be enough to
pull the ridgeline down to the point where it was essentially at the
water line of Catalina Island and there would be no view impairment
on Catalina. He stated that 2 feet would be better, but one foot would
allow a clear view of the island. Regarding the chimney, he stated that
it appeared rather large on the plans and by doing a quick scaling of
the plans he felt the chimney may be lowered by as much as four feet
and still comply with the building code requirements.

Commissioner Paulson
asked about the idea of a common area and the homeowner’s association
control over landscape maintenance and if this had been done in any
other developments in the City.

Director/Secretary
Rojas answered that he believed it had been done for the Island View
tract and it has been successful.

Commissioner Paulson
asked if all of the proposed homes were within their required lot coverage.

Senior Planner Fox
answered that all of the lots were with the required lot coverage, which
is 50 percent.

Chairman Lyon felt
that staff recommendations for the proposed project made a lot of sense.
He felt the applicant has worked very hard to accommodate the requests
of the neighbors. He felt there had been a number of requests, some
of which were very reasonable and some of which are not reasonable.
He stated the developer had done a good job in trying to do what he
could to make this development compatible with the area. He stated that
everyone gets used to living in an area that has certain features, but
people have a right to develop their property. He understood that it
is very disappointing to lose a view, however the City has a code that
is very specific on what is a protected view and the Planning Commission
is obligated to follow that code. He felt there were no violations to
that code in this proposed development and everything seemed to be reasonable
and within the code.

Commissioner Long
also supported the staff’s recommendation. He felt that all requirements
needed for the Planning Commission to issue a permit have been met.
He stated that if there was an issue where someone felt the density
of the development was inappropriate, the Planning Commission does not
have the authority to change the zoning and change the density of the
development. In particular, he stated that the Commission cannot improperly
and unreasonably withhold approval from the property owner for the purpose
of essentially extorting the property owner into selling the property
to the City at a discount. He felt that this particular developer has
been one of the most cooperative before the Commission. He acknowledged
that the developer could not meet all of everyone’s concerns, however
he has met all of the concerns that this Commission has the power to
make him.

Commissioner Cartwright
commended the applicant for working with the neighbors and the Commission
and agreed with the comments of Chairman Lyon and Commissioner Long.
He stated that revised plans show the house sizes have been significantly
reduced, all of the two-story homes have been changed to single-story
homes, the setbacks have been significantly increased, and the landscape
plans call for retention of mature foliage where possible and to add
additional plantings to ensure privacy. That, along with the staff recommendation
to limit the height of the chimney, to require foliage be maintained
at a maximum of 8 feet, and to regulate the HOA to maintain foliage
convinced Mr. Cartwright that the development meets the findings for
a tract map, a Conditional Use Permit, and a Grading Permit. He wanted
to make sure, however, that the Planning Commission conditions the approval
so that the pad on lot 9 is lowered an additional foot and the planting
along the south side is sufficient to screen the homes and the foliage
is maintained at the specified height.

Commissioner Mueller
stated he was initially concerned with the lot density issue, but realized
there was nothing the Planning Commission could do based on the fact
that it met the RS-4 criteria. He too felt the developer made a concerted
effort to address that issue in a different way, perhaps, than what
the neighbors might think is the best way. However, he felt the proposed
plan best serves the immediate neighborhood. He felt some of the setbacks
might be a little small, but again they were within the standards of
the development code. He was pleased that the developer was willing
to lower the pad by one foot on lot 9, which would help alleviate some
of the concerns of the immediate neighbors.

Commissioner Paulson
complimented the developer on being responsive once the issues had been
brought to his attention. However, he felt if the developer had talked
with the property owners before he filed the application there may not
have been the need for three hearings. He stated his concerns were addressed
as long as the right conditions were included that guarantee the issue
of protection of privacy at the time of installation of trees at both
the south and east side of the project.

Commissioner Cartwright
moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-44 recommending adoption of
a Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt P.C. Resolution NO. 2001-45
thereby approving the staff recommendations with the following conditions:
Lower the pad on lot 9 by one foot, ensure the trees that are planted
on the south and east side of the project are sufficient to provide
adequate privacy at the time of installation, and an easement on the
property that will be conditioned to ensure that the homeowners association
has access to maintain the landscaping.

Commissioner Long
referred to page 15, condition no. 25, and felt that a reference should
be added that the landscaping plans will also take into account view
concerns by selecting from the trees or plantings recommended by the
city as appropriate and as reviewed and approved by the Director. He
also felt that compliance with the CC&R’s should be incorporated
into the conditions of approval.

Senior Planner Fox presented the staff report. He described the revised
project, noting that the size of the project was now smaller, the maximum
ridgeline of the house has been lowered two feet, and the entire house
has been slightly realigned on the site. He noted that a portion of
the detached garage would encroach into the required 20-foot front setback
from the realigned roadway. Therefore, staff recommended the Commission
require the garage be modified to meet the 20-foot setback imposed.
He stated that the total grading quantity has decreased overall, however
the amount of export has remained about the same. Mr. Fox stated that
staff has reassessed the previous analysis of view impacts of the project
based upon the silhouette and with respect to public views from Palos
Verdes Drive South the revised residence would encroach a maximum of
approximately 3 feet into the 2-degree down arc zone discussed in the
City’s Coastal Specific Plan. However, the revised structure is also
below the 16-foot height limit. He explained that the City has generally
permitted structures that are not within a specific view corridor and
comply with the 16-foot height limit to encroach into the 2 degree down
arc zone. He stated that staff believes the public views for motorists,
bicyclists, and pedestrians will not be significantly impaired by the
revised project. Mr. Fox stated that the proposed project was now at
10-feet above finished grade, which is 6 feet lower than the 16 foot
height limit. He stated that the structure would block some portions
of the private ocean views from homes in the Seaview community; staff
did not feel it was tall enough to encroach into the view of Catalina
Island. Therefore staff believes that the revised project and related
structures will not adversely affect the use of neighboring properties
any more significantly than a 16-foot tall structure would. Addressing
the issue as to whether or not the project would require a height variation,
Mr. Fox explained that in every case both with and without the road
realignment and measured from existing or proposed finished grade the
revised project does not exceed the 16-foot height limit on either an
upslope or downslope lot. Therefore, it was staff’s position that a
height variation was not required for the project. He explained that
staff expanded the comparison of the development intensity and neighborhood
compatibility of the project to include only the truly useable area
of the flat upper portion of the site. Considering the significantly
larger lot size, the scale of the proposed house in proportion to the
lot is still about the same as those in the surrounding neighborhoods.
In addition, the revised house is still set well apart from the surrounding
neighborhood so bulk and mass does not seem in direct context with surrounding
homes. Therefore, staff believes the revised project is compatible with
the scale and character of surrounding neighborhoods. He stated that
staff believes all required findings can be made for the Coastal Permit
and Grading Permit and therefore recommends approval of the project.

Commissioner Cartwright
asked if neighborhood compatibility was a required finding for this
project.

Senior Planner Fox
stated that it was a finding required for the Grading Permit.

Chairman Lyon opened
the public hearing.

Eric Johnson
(applicant) 92 Yacht Harbor Drive explained that after listening to
the concerns of the neighbors and the Planning Commission it was clear
that the major issues were the overall mass of the house and height
of the structure. He felt that the revised project addressed these concerns.
He was not sure what else they could do with this proposal. He stated
he was willing to move the garage out of the setback area. Mr. Johnson
stated he and his architect have worked very hard to minimize impacts,
accommodate concerns, and to provide a proposal which was completely
conforming to the rules of the City.

Ted McCowan
4212 Admirable Drive stated that he was never too concerned about how
the project would impact him until the silhouette was erected at the
site. He explained that he has a view of Catalina Island as well as
a view of the entire Portuguese Bend Cove. He stated that the flags
indicate that the guesthouse will completely block his view of the cove.
He felt the guesthouse could be moved slightly or lowered, as it appears
to be a two-story structure.

Commissioner Cartwright
asked Mr. McCowan if the Transamerica project would have blocked any
portion of his view.

Mr. McCowan responded
that he never determined if the project would block his view or not.

Debbie Huff
4245 Palos Verdes Drive South stated that the guesthouse, which is the
closest to Palos Verdes Drive South. She did not understand the rational
as to why the maximum height of the structure could change when the
location of the structure changed. She discussed landscaping and felt
that there were currently many trees and shrubs on the property over
16-feet in height. She also stated that as she walks along Palos Verdes
Drive South the entire amount of the water between the cliffs and Catalina
Island would no longer be visible to the public. She noted that once
the Ocean Trails houses are built that ocean area would also be blocked.
To alleviate some of the concerns of the neighborhood she suggested
changing the zoning to RSA-5, which is one house per five acres, which
seems to be more appropriate for this site. She also suggested that
there were extremely attractive tax benefits available that are offered
to those putting land aside in perpetuity as open space.

Diane Weinberger
4206 Exultant Drive stated she was president of the Seaview Residents
Association. She stated that she was representing residents who had
major concerns over vegetation. She felt there was a lot of vegetation
on the lot that should have been trimmed over the years that is causing
view impacts. She requested that if the project is approved the vegetation
is held to very strict minimums to be as low as possible.

Eloise Radford
135 Seawall Road stated she was in favor of the project. She stated
that if she were in the position of having that piece of property and
the means to develop it, she would hope that she would do as the Johnsons
have done and work closely with the neighbors and build something very
desirable in the neighborhood. She felt the Johnsons have given quite
a bit and it was now time for the neighborhood to allow the Johnsons
to start their project. She stated that there would never be 100 percent
fulfillment on everyone’s part. She felt the neighbors had to always
realize that something would eventually be built on this vacant lot.

Cathy French
4235 Palos Verdes Drive South stated that the guesthouse obscures a
major portion of the cove view from her residence. She stated that since
it was a guesthouse, she wondered why it couldn’t be lowered. She also
felt that lowering the height of the guesthouse would substantially
improve the view from Palos Verdes Drive South for the general public.
She also discussed the vegetation and she too asked there be some condition
of approval to keep the vegetation on the property as low as possible.
She asked that there be some type of direct oversight during the building
process to verify the grading height and pads before the structure is
built. Finally, Ms. French stated that she was trusting the Johnsons
integrity and character that what was being built on that property today
was all that was being built there. She stated that she was loosing
a substantial part of her view and did not want to loose more of it
through a false sense of security that more could be built.

Cory Johnson
92 Yacht Harbor Drive stated he was in favor of the project. He stated
that his family has reduced the size of the house by quite a bit, and
his bedroom has already been cut in half. He stated he would like to
live in his new house before he leaves for college.

Jill Carlton
4265 Palos Verdes Drive South stated she was grateful for the work the
Johnsons have done to try to minimize the view impacts from the surrounding
neighborhood. She stated that she had concerns regarding the vegetation
on the property. She stated that she would prefer to have the view through
of a chain link fence without the pilasters that have been recommended
by staff.

Commissioner Cartwright
asked staff what the maximum height of shrubbery was as defined by the
code.

Senior Planner Fox
stated that any foliage was allowed to grow to a height of 16 feet.
He pointed out that in condition no. 20, with respect to the fencing
along Palos Verdes Drive South, it specifically says that hedges and
solid walls are not permitted. Condition No. 21 also limits the height
of the trees and foliage to no more than 16 feet or the highest point
of the structure, whichever is lower.

Commissioner Cartwright
stated there were many ridgelines on this property and asked which one
prevailed.

Senior Planner Fox
answered that it would be the highest ridgeline, which is 228, the ridgeline
of the main house.

Steve Carlton
4265 Palos Verdes Drive South stated that the new proposal has the main
house moved back to attach with what is now the study, and wondered
if had the main house had stayed closer to the original area and the
new study moved slightly, if the new ridgeline would have dropped from
228 to possible 226 or 225. He stated that the importance of the height
of the ridgeline was that the foliage was allowed to grow to 16 feet
or the ridgeline of 228. He stated that it would only take a 3 to 5
foot bush on the west side of the property near Palos Verdes Drive South
to totally obliterate the lighthouse, Long Point, and Abalone Cove.
He noted that was why it was important to have specific conditions included
regarding landscaping and foliage.

Lenee Bilski
4255 Palos Verdes Drive South asked the Commission not to decide this
matter this evening, but to continue the public hearing. She stated
that from her home she could look out across the site to the scrub along
the very edge of the cliff. She stated it was very difficult to see
the actual topographical map and the feet above mean high tide. She
asked for a map of the natural grade so that she could more easily determine
what the grade actually was, when the survey was done, what scale was
used and what the reference points were for the natural grade. She was
very concerned about the public view impairments and noted that the
General Plan divides visual aspects into views and vistas. She stated
that the staff made their recommendation based on vista corridors, but
she explained that views could be continuous as viewed from along a
public corridor. She stated that views have a broad focal point which
has unlimited arc and depth. She discussed the Coastal Specific Plan
and its discussion of view corridors. She felt that there was a public
viewing point from all along Palos Verdes Drive South that should be
protected.

Commissioner Paulson
asked Ms. Bilski how she would like to see the property developed.

Ms. Bilski responded
that there was enough property to develop it so that it wouldn’t block
the public views as much as the flagging makes it visually apparent
that it does. She felt the house could be adjusted and moved back toward
Palos Verdes Drive South and possible tilted in a different direction.

Chairman Lyon stated
that staff recommends compliance with the 20-foot setback from the street,
which would require Mr. Johnson to move the subterranean garage slightly.
He asked Mr. Johnson if that would be a problem.

Mr. Johnson stated
that was not something he had studied, but felt it could be accomplished.

Chairman Lyon felt
the garage was entirely underground and therefore was a subterranean
garage in a setback area, and therefore did not require a Variance.

Director/Secretary
Rojas stated that according to the Development Code, structures that
are completely subterranean do not have to meet the setbacks. In looking
at the garage objectively, staff could not make the determination that
the garage was completely subterranean. The Planning Commission could,
however disagree and take the position that the garage is substantially
subterranean and does not have to meet the setbacks.

Chairman Lyon did
not think there was any impact on anything exterior, whether in the
setback area or not, and could not see any practical objection to encroaching
into the setback area.

Commissioner Long
asked Mr. Johnson if he would be agreeable to some sort of condition
designed to protect the neighbors concerns regarding views such as a
condition that all foliage be maintained at an elevation of 226 or below.

Mr. Johnson answered
that he would be more than happy to agree not to plant anything along
Palos Verdes Drive South. He stated that he had not yet worked out a
landscape plan and expressed concern that he not be treated any differently
than any other applicant in the City and their rights to landscape.
He explained that his intent in landscaping was to actually open up
area and have some areas with trees. He stated that he would like to
have a few trees on the property.

Commissioner Mueller
asked about the function of the fence along Palos Verdes Drive South
and if Mr. Johnson was required to maintain that fence.

Mr. Johnson answered
that the fence serves as security for the gated community at the Portuguese
Bend Club. He stated he was obligated to maintain the fence.

Commissioner Mueller
asked if was possible to maintain the security for the Portuguese Bend
Club at a lower elevation, further down on the property.

Mr. Johnson felt
it might be possible to drop the fence down lower on the site. He stated
he would do everything possible to make the fence as low as possible
and still maintain the integrity of the private community. He stated
he would be very hesitant to agree to something specific without having
consulted his Portuguese Bend Club neighbors.

Chairman Lyon closed
the public hearing.

Commissioner Paulson
asked about the 16-foot high guesthouse and why that was allowed.

Senior Planner Fox
answered that the Code allows for a guesthouse to be 16-feet in height.
He stated that there had not been a significant change in the actual
configuration of the structure itself, rather the use of the structure
had changed. He stated that the actual structure had only increased
in height by six inches.

Commissioner Paulson
was concerned about how to construct a condition regarding the height
of vegetation that was responsive to the concerns of the neighbors yet
was not unduly restrictive for the property owner.

Commissioner Long
suggested a condition that stated that no new foliage should grow in
excess of 16 feet.

Commissioner Paulson
asked if there was any way to reorient the placement of the guesthouse
that would reduce the massing and reduce the view impairments from the
neighboring properties

Chairman Lyon re-opened
the public hearing.

Mr. Johnson felt
that reorientation for the guesthouse was possible, but was concerned
that reorienting the guesthouse may transfer any view impairment from
one property to another.

Chairman Lyon closed
the public hearing.

Chairman Lyon felt
the current proposal presented a reasonable balance between preserving
the views of the neighbors and retaining a view and the aesthetics of
the project.

Commissioner Cartwright
agreed that the last to build has the same rights as the first to build.
He stated that there was no way to build on this property without affecting
somebody’s views and this was not a view corridor. He felt that what
was being proposed was far superior to what was previously approved
for Transamerica.

Chairman Lyon asked
if the project as currently proposed violated any of the development
code requirements.

Senior Planner Fox
stated that the currently proposed project met all required standards
of the Development Code.

Commissioner Long
was convinced that the view impairment would not be significant, given
the overall development, provided that certain conditions were imposed.
However, he was concerned with the required finding that for new single-family
residences the grading and/or related construction is compatible with
immediate neighborhood characteristics. He then discussed how neighborhood
characteristics were defined in the Development Code Section 17.02.04a6.
He felt that the characteristics regarding front yard setbacks were
satisfied and did not believe the requirement for compatible architectural
styles and materials was satisfied and he was not convinced that the
house was compatible in regards to scale. He asked if staff had ever
looked at homes on both sides of a major arterial when considering neighborhood
compatibility.

Director/Secretary
Rojas recalled a similar property on Palos Verdes Drive West adjacent
to the Lunada Point development where there was a very large home proposed.
He explained that since there were no large homes adjacent to it staff
did compare it with homes across Palos Verdes Drive West.

Commissioner Paulson
stated that he found it hard to believe that the residents on Palos
Verdes Drive South would rather see a subdivision developed on the lot
with the approximate same size structures developed on the lot. He stated
that he would hate to say that the Planning Commission was not going
to approve the project because of neighborhood compatibility with some
scenario that was illogical.

Commissioner Long
felt that Commissioner Paulson was basically saying that this proposal
was in a neighborhood of one and he was not necessarily disagreeing
with that statement.

Chairman Lyon moved
to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-46 thereby approving Coastal Permit
No. 170/172 and Grading Permit No. 2260/2281 as presented by staff with
the following modifications: 1) Add to Condition No. 20 the requirement
that new vegetation shall not significantly impair views from surrounding
properties; and, 2) Amend the condition to say that the above ground
portion of the garage shall comply with the 20-foot front yard setback.

Commissioner Mueller
noted that one of the findings for the Coastal Permit was that new development
should be required to provide public access from Palos Verdes Drive
South to the shoreline. He asked why this new development was not required
to provide public access to the beach.

Senior Planner Fox
explained that there is an exception to the public access requirement
when public access is provided nearby. He stated that there was public
access to the ocean from Ocean Trails and there was public access available
to all City property to the west at Sacred Cove and Abalone Cove Beach
Park.

Commissioner Paulson
discussed the fencing along Palos Verdes Drive South and the proposed
pilasters and if the fence should remain as conditioned in the staff
report.

Commissioner Mueller
felt that pilasters should be prohibited along the fence.

Chairman Lyon agreed
to the amendment that no pilasters will allowed in the fence along Palos
Verdes Drive West.

Commissioner Cartwright
seconded he motion. The motion passed (5-0).

Commissioner Long
explained that his vote in no way set any sort of precedent, as he concluded
that this house was in a neighborhood of one.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 a.m.

RECESS/COMMENTS
FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) at APPROXIMATELY
8:30 P.M.:

REQUESTED
ACTION: A REQUEST TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,071 SQUARE FOOT FIRST-STORY
ADDITION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 1,251 SQUARE FOOT SECOND-STORY
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE ADDITIONS ARE PROPOSED
AT A HEIGHT OF 22.41’ AS MEASURED FROM THE FINISH GRADE ADJACENT TO
THE LOWEST FOUNDATION (94.02’) TO THE HIGHEST RIDGE (116.43’), AND 19.28’,
AS MEASURED FROM THE HIGHEST ELEVATION TO BE COVERED BY STRUCTURE (97.15’)
TO THE HIGHEST RIDGE.

On May 15, 2001,
the City Council approved Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit No.
40 to allow the submittal of the necessary Planning Department applications
to request approval for a 597 square foot garage, 474 square foot first
story addition, and a 1,251 square foot second story addition.

On July 26, 2001,
Height Variation Permit No. 938 was submitted to the Planning, Building
and Code Enforcement Department for processing. The request is for the
construction of a 1,071 square foot first-story addition, which includes
a 474 square foot garage, and the construction of a new 1,251 square
foot second story addition.

The application
was deemed incomplete on August 23, 2001 due to insufficient information
on the submitted plans. Upon the submittal of needed information on
October 30, 2001, the application package was deemed complete on November
1, 2001. The required public hearing notice was sent to 58 property
owners within the 500 foot radius on November 1, 2001 and published
in the Peninsula News on November 3, 2001. During the thirty
(30) day noticing period the City received one correspondence pertaining
to the proposed project

SITE
DESCRIPTION

The subject property
is located at 4362 Exultant Drive, located at the corner of Exultant
Drive and Dauntless Drive, in the southern portion of the City. The
parcel is a rectangular shaped lot with the front property line measuring
113.31’, the interior side property line measuring 110.64’, the rear
property line measuring 113.00’ and the street side property line measuring
91.00’ for an overall lot area measuring 12,000 square feet. The parcel
is zoned single-family residential, RS-4, and is currently improved
with a single-story 2,277 square foot single-family residence, with
a 467 square foot detached two-car garage, for an overall structure
size of 2,744 square feet.

PROJECT
DESCRIPTION

The applicants propose
to construct a 1,071 square foot first story addition and to construct
a new 1,251 square foot second story addition. This would bring the
total square footage of the dwelling to 5,066 square feet (including
garage area).

Specifically, the
applicants propose to construct an addition to the dining room located
to the rear of the existing residence, an addition to the kitchen and
nook area located in the front of the existing residence, an addition
to the south side of the residence where the stairs will be located,
an addition between the existing detached garage and residence and an
addition to the front of the existing detached garage. The proposed
second story addition will be located above the existing detached garage,
above the addition between the detached garage and the residence and
above the addition located in front of the detached garage.

The proposed two
story portion of the additions are proposed to be constructed at a height
of 22.41’, as measured from the finished grade adjacent to the lowestfoundation (94.02’) to the highest ridge (116.43’), and 19.28’,
as measured from the highest elevation to be covered by structure (97.15’)
to the highest ridge. The proposed first story portion of the addition
is proposed to be located under the existing ridgeline, therefore not
exceeding the existing height of the structure.

The proposed addition
to the dining room area, the addition to the kitchen and nook, and the
addition for the stairs will be reviewed under the Site Plan Review
application, since these portions of the project do not exceed the 16
foot height limit. Whereas the new second story addition and the first
story additions, which will be covered by the new second story addition,
will be reviewed under the Height Variation application.

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

The project qualifies
for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Guideline Section 15301.

Class 1 exempts
from the preparation of an environmental document projects consisting
of any alteration to the existing structure or topography that involves
no significant expansion or use beyond that previously existing. Staff
made this determination since the site is developed with a single-family
residence and the proposed project consists of a minor alteration to
the existing structure on the subject property, with no significant
additional site disturbance.

CODE
CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS

A. HEIGHT
VARIATION

The RS-4 zoning
district permits additions up to 16 feet in height by right through
a Site Plan Review application. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040 (C)(1)
of the Municipal Code, a property owner may request approval of a Height
Variation to exceed the height of 16 feet up to a maximum height of
26 feet. For pad lots, such as the project site, the height is measured
from the highest existing elevation of the existing pad covered by structure
to the highest point of the structure. The portion of the proposed project
that exceeds the maximum height of 16 feet, is subject to the Height
Variation application process.

A Height Variation
application must be reviewed by the Planning Commission or Director
of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, depending on the location
and square footage of the second story. If the proposed second story:
1) extends closer than 25 feet from the front or street-side property
line; 2) exceeds 75% of the first story footprint area (residence and
attached garage); 3) covers 60% ormore of the existing garage
footprint; or 4) has the potential to significantly impair a view as
determined by the Director based on an initial site visit, the application
must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission
review is required for this application since the proposed second story
covers 60% or more of the existing garage footprint and the proposed
second story extends closer than 25’ from the front property line.

In considering a
Height Variation application, Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(e) requires that
the Planning Commission make the nine findings in reference to the property
and project under consideration (the City's Municipal Code language
appears in boldface type, followed by Staff's analysis in normal type).

That
the applicant has complied with the Early Neighborhood Consultation
process established by the City.

The applicant
completed the Early Neighborhood Consultation process by canvassing
the property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and informing
them of the proposed addition. The applicant is required under the
Early Neighborhood Consultation process to obtain signatures of at
least 60% of the property owners within a 500 foot radius or signatures
of at least 25% of the property owners within 500 feet and at least
70% within 100 feet of the subject property. Staff reviewed the number
of property owners that were consulted and found that the applicant
complies with the early neighbor consultation because signatures of
33 of the 56 properties were obtained within the 500’ radius, which
is 59%, and 10 of the 12 properties within the 100’ radius, which
is 83%. Therefore, the applicant has complied with the Early Neighborhood
Consultation process.

That
the structure does not significantly impair a view from public property
which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific
Plan as City designated viewing areas.

There are no public
viewing areas identified in the City's General Plan within the vicinity
of the subject property. In addition, the subject property is not
located within the Coastal Specific Plan area. Therefore, Staff determined
that the proposed structure will not significantly impair a view from
a City designated viewing area.

That
the proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory.

The subject property
is not located on a ridge, which is defined as an elongated crest
or linear series of crest of hills, bluffs or highlands. In addition,
the subject property is not located on a promontory, which is defined
as a prominent mass of land that overlooks or projects onto a lowland
or body of water on at least two sides. Therefore, Staff determined
that the proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory.

That
the proposed structure when considered exclusive of foliage, does
not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel.

A "viewing area"
as defined in the Section 17.02.040(A)(15) of the City's Municipal
Code means that area of a structure (excluding bathrooms, hallways,
garages orclosets) or that area of a lot (excluding setback
areas) where the owner and City determine the best and most important
view exists. In structures, the finished floor elevation of any viewing
area must be at or above existing grade adjacent to the exterior wall
of the part of the building nearest to said viewing area.

Additionally,
according to the Development Code and the Height Variation Guidelines,
a "protected viewing area" is usually established from the
primary living spaces, such as the living room, dining room, kitchen
or family room, located on the level nearest grade. The only exception
is when a residence is designed so that the primary living spaces
are contained within the upper level of the structure.

The residential
structures within the immediate vicinity located on Exultant Drive
are constructed on pad lots at equal or slightly higher elevations
than the subject property. The majority of the homes within the surrounding
neighborhood are single story, with the primary "viewing areas"
located on the lower level. Since the building pads are graded so
that they gradually increase in height from Schoonner Drive to Dauntless
Drive, the homes on Dauntless Drive are built on pad elevations that
are higher than the subject property with their ocean view oriented
toward the south and west in the direction of the subject property
and proposed addition.

Based on a site
inspection conducted by Staff on November 26, 2001, Staff believes
that the proposed addition will significantly impair the view from
4343 Dauntless Drive exclusive of foliage. The residence at 4343 Dauntless
Drive is located diagonally from the subject property with its ocean
view oriented toward the subject property. Staff was not able to gain
access to the interior of the residence, however, Staff analyzed the
view impact from the outside of a window located on the front elevation,
which appears to be the main viewing area of the residence. From this
location, the residence has an ocean view over the roof lines of the
properties located on 4361 Exultant Drive, 4354 Exultant Drive and
more importantly over the applicant’s existing garage at 4362 Exultant
Drive. The proposed second story addition will be located above and
in front of the existing garage, therefore significantly impairing
the view of the ocean from 4343 Dauntless Drive. (Photographs will
be provided at the Planning Commission meeting). Because of the orientation
and the pad elevation of the other homes located on Exultant Drive
and on Dauntless Drive, the proposed project does not impair the views
from the viewing areas of other homes in the immediate neighborhood.

Based on the above
analysis, Staff determined that the proposed addition will significantly
impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel.

That
there is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting
the application.

As indicated in
Finding No. 4 above, the residential structures within the immediate
vicinity of the proposed project located on Dauntless Drive areconstructed on pad lots at higher elevations than the properties
located on Exultant Drive with ocean views oriented toward the south
and west. Exclusive of foliage, the residence at 4343 Dauntless Drive
has a view over the roof lines of the residences located on Exultant
Drive. Therefore if other properties on Exultant Drive propose similar
second story additions, Staff believes that such additions would result
in significant cumulative view impairment from 4343 Dauntless Drive
and most likely from other properties located on Dauntless Drive.
Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed addition together with
any future additions of the same nature will cause significant cumulative
view impairment.

That
the structure is designed in such a manner as to minimize impairment
of a view.

As discussed in
Finding No. 4 above, the residence at 4343 Dauntless Drive has an
existing view over the existing garage and in the area in front of
the garage of the applicant’s property. The first story addition is
proposed to be located in front of the existing garage, and the proposed
second story addition is proposed to be located above the entire first
story addition and above the existing garage. As such, the second
story addition is not designed in a manner to minimize the impairment
of the view from the residence at 4343 Dauntless Drive.

One way that the
proposed second story addition may be re-designed to minimize impairment
of view is by setting the second story back, away from the front property
line, so that the second story is smaller in size and located behind
the existing roof ridgelines, as viewed from the properties located
on Dauntless Drive.

That
the proposed structure complies with all other Code requirements.

Staff reviewed
the proposed addition for compliance with the RS-4 Residential Development
Standards as shown in the table below.

Table
1

DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD

REQUIREMENT

EXISTING
STRUCTURE

PROPOSED
ADDITIONS

Front Yard
Setback

20’-0"

19’-4"

20’-0"

Rear Yard
Setback

15’-0"

28’-0"

34’-5"

Interior
Side Yard Setback

5’-0"

4’-10"

5’-0"

Street Side
Yard Setback

10’-0"

9’-8"

±
73’-6"

Max. Lot
Coverage

50%

38%

41%

Building
Height

16’/20’

15.04’/18.17’

19.28’/22.41’

According to the above table, the existing structure is nonconforming
as it does not comply with the front, street side and interior side
setback requirements. However, the proposed additions have been designed
to comply with all the setback requirements.

In
regards to lot coverage, the existing residence’s footprint is 2,277
square feet, the garage footprint is 467 square feet, and the existing
deck located in the rear yard is 761 square feet for a total footprint
of 3,505 square feet. The existing driveway and outside parking area
is 1,023 square feet, for an existing total lot coverage calculation
of 4,528 square feet, which is 38% of the 12,000 square foot lot.
The proposed first story addition is proposed to be 1,071 square feet,
and will partially encroach into the existing driveway location, thus
reducing the existing driveway to 317 square feet. This will result
in a total lot coverage calculation of 4,893 square feet, which is
41% of the 12,000 square foot lot. The maximum lot coverage allowed
for properties located in the RS-4 zone is 50%, therefore the proposed
structure will comply with the lot coverage requirement.

That
the proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood
character.

Staff analyzed
the surrounding neighborhood to determine the compatibility of the
proposed residence. In accordance with the Development Code’s definition
of "neighborhood character", the analysis was based on the following
criteria of review: the scale of the surrounding residences, architectural
style, and front yard setbacks.

To
determine whether or not the proposed addition is compatible with
the existing neighborhood character, Staff compared the project to
existing structures within the immediate neighborhood, which is comprised
of the 10 closest properties, as shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2

Address

Lot
Size*

Structure
Size (existing)

No.
of Stories

Front
Yard Setback

4331
Dauntless Drive

12,090
sq.ft.

2,355
sq.ft.

One

20’

4332
Dauntless Drive

12,103
sq.ft.

2,581
sq.ft.

One

20’

4343
Dauntless Drive

12,090
sq.ft.

2,206
sq.ft.

One

20’

4351
Dauntless Drive

12,090
sq.ft.

2,596
sq.ft.

One

20’

4361
Dauntless Drive

12,210
sq.ft.

2,907
sq.ft.

One

20’

4321
Exultant Drive

12,000
sq.ft.

2,816
sq.ft.

One

20’

4334
Exultant Drive

11,960
sq.ft.

1,990
sq.ft.

One

20’

4338
Exultant Drive

12,010
sq.ft.

2,934
sq.ft.

One

20’

4348
Exultant Drive

12,810
sq.ft.

2,457
sq.ft.

One

20’

4354
Exultant Drive

12,060
sq.ft.

2,961
sq.ft.

One

20’

Average

12,142
sq.ft.

2,580
sq.ft.

One

20’

4362
Exultant Drive

12,000
sq.ft.

2,744
sq.ft.
(existing w/ garage)

One

19’-4"

5,066
sq.ft.
(proposed w/ garage)

Two

19’-4"

* The lot sizes indicated in this column are based on information
obtained from the Los Angles County Tax Roll (TRW database).

1)
Scale of surrounding properties, including total square footage and
lot coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures.

According to the
above table, the total structure sizes (including garage area) of
the neighboring homes range from 1,990 square feet to 2,961 square
feet, with anaverage size of 2,580 square feet for the ten
(10) closest developed properties. As previously mentioned, the subject
residence is currently 2,744 square feet (garage included). After
the proposed addition is constructed, the total size of the structure
(garage area included) will be 5,066 square feet. In relation to the
neighboring properties, the subject residence will be approximately
2,486 square feet larger than the average structure size and will
be 2,105 square feet greater than the largest home in the neighborhood
(4354 Exultant Drive).

Staff is of the
opinion that the scale of the proposed residence is inconsistent with
the scale found in the surrounding neighborhood because the proposed
structure is almost twice as large as the residences found in the
surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, the surrounding residences
are mainly single story, with only one split level home located at
4343 Dauntless Drive. However, the split level residence located on
Dauntless Drive is located under one roof, integrating the two story
portion of the residence into the one story portion. However, the
proposed second story will be located entirely over the single story
portion and existing garage, creating a pop-up design. Furthermore,
the exterior walls of the second story addition are not setback away
from the exterior first-story walls, resulting in no articulation
between the first and second stories. As a result, the apparent bulk
and mass of the structure is very evident.

Although the portion
of the lot where the existing garage is located is lower than the
portion of the lot where the main residence is located, and the second
story addition is proposed to be located on the lower elevation portion
of the lot, the adjacent residence (to the south) is constructed on
a pad lot that is located at a slightly lower elevation and is a single
story residence. Therefore the proposed second story addition will
appear to be overshadowing the residence to the south and not compatible
with the surrounding residences and the neighborhood character.

Although the proposed
lot coverage will comply with the code requirement, Staff is of the
opinion that the proposed lot coverage will not be compatible with
the lot coverage found in the surrounding neighborhood because the
footprint of the proposed residence (3,815 square feet) will be approximately
1,200 square feet larger than the average footprint (2,580 square
feet) of other residences found in the neighborhood, while the subject
lot is approximately the same size as the average lot size found in
the neighborhood. Therefore, the lot coverage will be approximately
11% larger than the average lot coverage found in the neighborhood.

No accessory structures
are proposed with this project, therefore this portion of this finding
does not apply.

2)
Architectural styles, including facade treatment, structure height,
open space between structure, roof designs, the apparent bulk and
mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials.

The subject residence
is located in a neighborhood comprised of other single-story residences.
The surrounding homes consist mainly of stucco finish with wood siding
or brick details. The roof material is mainly wood shake, rock roof,
and red tile roof. The homes consist mainly of a combination of gable
roofs with hip roofs and flat roofs.

As discussed in
Finding No.2 above, the proposed second story does not incorporate
any articulation from the first story, creating a pop-up design, which
is not found in the neighborhood, and makes the second story very
apparent. Additionally, the lack of articulation increases the apparent
bulk and mass of the structure, which is inconsistent with the design
found in the surrounding homes.

The existing structure
has a stucco finish with wood siding and asphalt shingle roof material.
The applicant is proposing stucco and custom veneer, which are finish
materials found in the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed finish
materials will be consistent with the finish materials found in the
surrounding neighborhood.

As discussed in
Finding No. 7 above, the proposed additions will comply with the required
setback requirements for the RS-4 zone, and therefore will maintain
adequate open space between the proposed additions and the property
lines.

3)
Front yard setbacks

The subject residence
is located in the RS-4 zoning district which requires lots that were
created prior to the City’s incorporation to maintain a twenty (20)
foot front yard setback. The existing structure is setback nineteen
(19) feet from the front property line. The proposed structure will
maintain a front yard setback of twenty (20) feet, which meets the
City’s minimum requirements. In terms of the immediate neighborhood,
as shown in table 1, the surrounding properties are developed with
an average of twenty (20) foot front yard setbacks. By maintaining
the twenty (20) foot front yard setback, this project will comply
with the Code requirement, as well as be consistent with the front
yard setbacks found in the surrounding properties.

Based on the analysis
in Findings No. 1) and 2), Staff determined that the proposed addition
will not be compatible with the existing neighborhood because the
proposed structure will be out of scale compared to the scale of the
surrounding homes, and the apparent mass and bulk of the proposed
second story will not be compatible with the other single story homes
found in the neighborhood.

That
the proposed structure does not result in an unreasonable infringement
of privacy of the occupants of abutting residences.

The proposed
second story addition will contain windows on the south side elevation,
which will be facing the adjacent neighbor to the south, and will
contain a second story balcony on the rear elevation, which will be
facing the neighbor to the rear. Staff determined that the proposed
structure will not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy
because the adjacent residence to the south contains a courtyard area
in the side yard which does not appear to be used as a gathering area.
The subject property currently contains a raised deck located in the
rear yard. The deck is located between the residence and the top of
the transitional slope which is located between the subject property
and the property adjacent to the rear. The property adjacent to the
rear is currently visible from the deck, and the second story balcony
on the rear elevation will not increase the infringement of privacy
to the property adjacent to the rear. As such, this finding can be
adopted.

B. SITE
PLAN REVIEW

As described in
the Project Description section above, the additions to the kitchen,
nook, dining room and the area for the stairs will be reviewed under
the Site Plan Review application. The total square footage of the above
mentioned additions will be approximately 150 square feet.

As discussed in
Finding No. 7 above, the proposed additions comply with the setback,
height and lot coverage requirements. Therefore, Staff recommends that
the dining room, kitchen, nook, and stairs additions be approved with
conditions.

ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION

On November 26,
2001, Staff conducted a site inspection to analyze the potential view
impacts that the proposed additions could have on the surrounding properties.
As discussed earlier in the report. Staff found that ocean views from
4343 Dauntless will be significantly impaired by the second story addition.
However, Staff was not able to discuss the impacts with the property
owners because the property owners were not home at the time of the
site visit. On December 3, 2001, Staff received a comment letter from
the property owners of 4343 Dauntless Drive, Mr. and Mrs. ---,stating
that they do not object to the proposed additions at 4362 Exultant Drive,
although the proposed additions impact their ocean view. They stated
that they do not object to the proposed additions and to the view impacts
because they are planning on submitting their own Height Variation application
for another property they own in the Seaview Tract, -----,
which they believe would impact the ocean view from 4362 Exultant Drive
(subject property).

Although the property
owners at 4343 Dauntless Drive do not object to the proposed additions,
Staff is still not able to recommend approval for the second story addition
because the Development Code only allows a Height Variation Permit to
be granted if all the findings, as stated in Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(e),
can be made. As discussed, Staff believes that the second story addition
significantly impairs a view and Finding No. 4 and Finding No. 5 cannot
be made.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the above
analysis, Staff determined that three of the nine findings for granting
a Height Variation cannot be made to allow the second story addition.
Specifically, Staff feels that the proposed second story addition will
significantly impair view from 4343 Dauntless Drive, will cumulatively
impair views, and the proposed scale and design of the residence is
not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff informed the
applicant of Staff’s concerns and proposed recommendation of denial,
and the applicant elected to proceed with the proposed additions. Therefore,
Staff recommends adoption of P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__, denying without
prejudice Height Variation Permit No. 938 and approving, with conditions,
Site Plan Review No. 9202.

ALTERNATIVES

In
addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternatives are
available for the Planning Commission's consideration:

Approve Height
Variation Permit No. 936 and Site Plan Review No. 9202, with condition,
and direct Staff to prepare an appropriate P.C. Resolution and conditions
of approval for Planning Commission consideration at the next meeting.

Identify any
issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or
the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue
the public hearing to a date certain.

Deny with prejudice.

ATTACHMENTS

Draft P.C. Resolution
No. 2001-__

Conditions of
Approval

Letter from Mr.
and Mrs. ----,------

Floor plan and
Site Plan

P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__

A RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 938 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A 1,071 SQUARE FOOT FIRST STORY ADDITION AND THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A NEW 1,251 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION, AT A HEIGHT OF 22.41’, AS MEASURED
FROM THE FINISH GRADE ADJACENT TO THE LOWEST FOUNDATION TO THE RIDGE;
AND APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 9202 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE STORY DINING ROOM, KITCHEN, NOOK, AND STAIRS
ADDITION, AT 4362 EXULTANT DRIVE.

WHEREAS,
on May 15, 2001, the Planning Commission approved Landslide Moratorium
Exception Permit No. 40 to allow the applicant to submit the necessary
Planning Department applications to request approval of a 597 square
foot garage, 474 square foot first story addition, and a 1,251 square
foot second story addition; and,

WHEREAS,
on July 26, 2001 an application for Height Variation No. 938 and Site
Plan Review No. 9201 was submitted to the Planning Department to allow
the construction of a 1,071 square foot first story addition, including
a 474 square foot garage, and the construction of a new 1,251 square
foot second story addition; and,

WHEREAS,
on November 1, 2001 the subject applications were deemed complete for
processing by Staff; and,

WHEREAS,
on November 3, 2001 the required public notices for the December 11,
2001 Planning Commission meeting were mailed to property owners within
a 500 foot radius of the subject property, and a notice was published
in the Peninsula News on November 5, 2001; and,

WHEREAS,
pursuant to the provision of the California Quality Act, Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et.seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California
Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et.seq., the City's Local
CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(F) (Hazardous Waste
and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Height Variation
No. 938 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore
the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Class
1, Section 15303(a)); and,

WHEREAS,
after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on December 11, 2001, at which all interested parties were given
the opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

NOW,
THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section
1:The Planning Commission finds that the applicant successfully
completed the Early Neighborhood Consultation process by obtaining 33
of the 56 properties within the 500’ radius, which is 33%, and 10 of
the 12 properties within the 100’ radius, which is 83%.

Section
2: The subject lot is not located in an area designated by the
City’s General Plan and the City’s Coastal Specific Plan as a viewing
area and therefore the proposed structure does not impair any public
views.

Section
3: The subject lot is located on a manufactured slope that was
created at the time the building pads for the subject tract were graded
and is not located on a ridge or promontory, as defined by the City’s
development Code.

Section
4: Based on a site inspection, exclusive of foliage the proposed
addition will significantly block the ocean view from 4343 Dauntless
Drive. Dauntless Drive is located diagonally from the subject property
and on a pad elevation higher than the subject property with the ocean
view oriented toward the subject property. Specifically, 4343 Dauntless
Drive has an ocean view over the existing garage at 4362 Exultant Drive.
The proposed second story addition will be located above the existing
garage therefore significantly blocking the ocean view from 4343 Dauntless
drive.

Section 5:The proposed project will create cumulative view impairment because
the properties located on Dauntless Drive are located on higher elevations
than the properties on Exultant Drive with views oriented toward and
above the houses located on Exultant Drive. Therefore if the properties
located on Exultant Drive propose similar additions, they could cumulatively
block the views of the properties located on Dauntless Drive.

Section 6:
The proposed addition is designed in such a manner which will significantly
impair the view of the residence at 4343 Dauntless drive because 4343
Dauntless Drive has an existing view over the existing garage and in
the area in front of the garage, and the proposed first story addition
is proposed to be located in front of the garage and the second story
addition is proposed to be located above the first story addition and
above the existing garage.

Section
7: The proposed structure complies with the residential development
standards for a RS-4 zoning district in terms of open space, height
requirements, and setbacks. Furthermore, in addition to obtaining Planning
approval, building and grading permits must also be obtained for compliance
with the Uniform Building Code, the Development Code and the City’s
Municipal Code.

Section
8: The proposed structure at 5,066 square foot will be almost
twice as large as the surrounding residences found in the neighborhood,
therefore not compatible with the scale of the neighborhood. Furthermore,
the proposed second story addition will be located entirely above the
proposed garage and first story addition providing no articulation between
the first and second story, therefore increasing the apparent bulk and
mass of the structure, which is not compatible with the surrounding
single story homes.

Section 9:
The proposed second story addition will not result in an unreasonable
infringement of privacy because the residence adjacent to the south
contains a courtyard in the side yard adjacent to the addition, which
does not appear to be used as a gathering area, therefore, the windows
located on the south elevation of the second story addition will not
create an infringement of privacy on the property to the south. Additionally,
there is currently a raised deck located in the rear yard of the subject
property, located at the top of the transitional slope between the subject
property and the property adjacent to the rear, and the adjacent property
to the rear is currently visible from the existing deck, therefore,
the proposed second story balcony will not increase the infringement
of privacy to the property adjacent to the rear.

Section 10:The proposed single story additions to the dining room located to
the rear of the existing residence, the kitchen and nook addition located
in the front of the existing residence and the stairs addition located
to the side of the existing residence will comply with all the Code
requirements in terms of lot coverage, setback, and height.

Section 11:
A Notice of Decision shall be given to the applicant and to all interested
parties informing them of the Planning Commission’s decision.

Section 12:
Any interested party may appeal this decision or any portion of this
decision to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040.C.1.j of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed
with the City, in writing, and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later
than fifteen (15) days following the date of the Planning Commission’s
adoption of this resolution.

Section 13:
For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes, and other records of proceedings,
the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies
without prejudice Height Variation No. 938, thereby denying the construction
of a 1,071 square foot first story addition, and the construction of
a new 1,251 square foot second story addition, and approves with conditions,
Site Plan Review No. 9202, thereby approving the construction of the
dining room, kitchen, nook and stair addition, totaling approximately
150 square feet.

PASSED,
APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of Decemberr, 2001, by the following
vote:

The applicant/property
owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing that they have
read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval listed below.
Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days
of the effective date of approval shall render this approval null
and void.

The approval
shall become null and void after 180 days from the date of approval
unless the approved plans are submitted to the Building and Safety
Division to initiate the "plan check" review process, pursuant
to Section 17.86.070 of the City’s Development Code. This approval
shall become null and void if, after initiating the "plan check"
review process, or receiving a building permit to begin construction,
said "plan check" or permit is allowed to expire or is withdrawn
by the applicant.

The Director
of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor
modifications to the approved preliminary plans or any of the conditions
if such modifications shall achieve substantially the same results
as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions.

Approval of Site
Plan Review No. 9202 is for the construction of approximately 150
square feet of first story additions. Specifically, approval of Site
Plan Review No. 9202 is for the construction of a dining room expansion
located in the rear of the existing residence, a kitchen and nook
expansion located in the front of the existing residence, and the
stairs addition located in the south side of the existing residence.

The maximum height
of the proposed structure shall not exceed the existing maximum ridgeline
and sixteen (16) feet as measured from the highest elevation of existing
pad covered by structure to the ridgeline and twenty feet as measured
from the point where the lowest foundation meets finish grade. The
dining room, kitchen and stair additions are proposed at a height
of 15.04’, as measured from highest point (97.04’) to the top of the
ridgeline (112.19’), and the nook addition is proposed at a height
of 12.52’, as measured from the highest point (97.04’) to the top
of the nook ridgeline (109.67’).

All structures
located within the required twenty (20) foot front yard setback area
shall not exceed a height of forty-two (42) inches in height.

No improvements
shall be permitted on "extreme slopes" (35% or greater).

No fence, wall,
hedge, structure, shrubbery, mound of earth or other visual obstruction
over thirty inches (30") in height, as measured from the adjacent
street curb elevation shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed
to grow within the "intersection visibility triangle". Intersection
visibility triangle shall be the area formed by the intersection of
extended curblines and a line joining points on the curb sixty (60)
feet from the point of intersection of the curbline extensions.

Based on a site
visit, Staff found that there is no foliage on the subject property
that exceeds sixteen (16) feet in height and significantly impairs
views from neighboring properties. Therefore, Staff finds that no
foliage shall be removed under this application request.

The project shall
substantially conform to the plans stamped approved with the effective
date of this approval.

Permitted hours
of construction are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
No work is permitted on Sundays or legal holidays.

The construction
site shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and
debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction
purposes. Such excess material may include, but is not limited to:
the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete,
asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded
furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.

In the event
that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement
are in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply.

No grading is
approved or allowed under this permit approval.

All applicable
soils/geotechnical reports required by the Building and Safety Division
shall be obtained by the applicant and approved by the City's geologist
prior to building permit issuance.

All applicable
permits required by the Building and Safety Division shall be obtained
by the applicant.

On September 26,
2001, Variance Permit (Case No. ZON2001-00088) was submitted to the
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department for processing to
legalize an existing 6’-0" high solid wall with pilasters located
within the front yard setback. The existing wall came to the City’s
attention because of a code enforcement case.

The application
was deemed complete on October 25, 2001. The required public hearing
notice was sent to 52 property owners within the 500 foot radius on
November 8, 2001 and published in the Peninsula News on November
10, 2001. The City received 3 written comments and one phone call pertaining
to the subject application.

SITE
DESCRIPTION

The subject property
is located on La Vista Verde Drive, which is located in the eastern
portion of the City and is accessed off Palos Verdes Drive East. La
Vista Verde Drive is a private street, with a 50’ wide road easement
for access purposes. The subject lot is an interior lot with a front
property line (located at the center of the private road) measuring
approximately 150’, one side property line measuring 127.56’, the other
side property line measuring 189.27’, and the rear property line measuring
132.13’, for a total lot area of 24,720 square feet. The portion of
the private street easement located on the subject property is 25’ wide.
Pursuant to Section 17.48.030(A)(1) of the Municipal Code, for lots
abutting a private street, setbacks shall be measured from the street
easement line. Therefore the required 20’ front yard setback is measured
from the edge of the easement, which is 25’ from the front property
line.

The subject property
is currently improved with a single-family residence. In addition to
the single-family residence, City records indicate approved permits
for a spa and a 285 square foot playhouse.

PROJECT
DESCRIPTION

The applicant is
requesting an after-the-fact approval of an existing 6’-0" high
solid wall located along the interior edge of the street easement, parallel
to La Vista Verde Drive, located within the front yard setback. The
wall measures 58" from the street side of the wall and 72"
from the interior side of the wall because the property slopes down
from the street. The wall includes 10 decorative pilasters. The two
pilasters located adjacent to the driveway are 24" wide by 24"
deep by 82" high (as measured from the interior side of the wall),
with a 24" lamp above the pilasters. The other 8 pilasters are
16" wide by 16" deep by 74" high, as measured from the
interior side of the wall and do not contain lamps.

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

The project qualifies
for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Guideline Section 15301.

Class 1 exempts
from the preparation of an environmental document projects consisting
of any alteration to the existing structure or topography that involves
no significant expansion or use beyond that previously existing. Staff
made this determination since the site is developed with a single-family
residence and the proposed project consists of a minor alteration to
the existing structure on the subject property, with no significant
additional site disturbance.

CODE
CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS

Pursuant to the
Development Code, the granting of a Variance provides a property owner
with relief from the strict interpretation of the provisions of the
Development Code, when practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships
or resultsinconsistent with the general intent and purpose of
the Development Code occur on private property. According to Section
17.76.030(C)(1)(a), the applicant is requesting a Variance to allow
a solid wall, within the front yard setback, higher than the code permitted
42" high.

Pursuant to Section
17.64.050 of the Development Code, the Planning Commission must adopt
the following four findings before granting approval of a Variance Permit.

That
there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the
property which do not apply generally to other property in the same
zoning district.

The applicant
is of the opinion that the property has an exceptional circumstance
in that the existing residence is located at a lower elevation than
the street of access, and therefore, a higher block wall than the
Code permits is necessary to provide the existing residence privacy
from the through traffic on the street.

Staff is of the
opinion that there are no exceptional circumstances related to the
size, shape and topography of the property which are not generally
found on other lots in the same zoning district, since the subject
property is a typicalgraded pad lot found throughout the zoning
district, and all the surrounding residences located on the same side
of the street are located at the same elevation as the subject property.
Additionally, there are no special circumstances which unreasonably
restrict the applicant’s ability to develop the property in conformance
with City Development regulations, in that the applicant may build
walls up to 42" in height, as allowed by the Development Code.
As such, Staff is of the opinion that this finding cannot be adopted.

That
such a Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed
by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning
district.

The applicant
believes that the granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right enjoyed by other property
owners under similar conditions because there are other walls higher
than the permitted 42" height, which provides other property
owners with privacy.

Staff conducted
a site inspection in the neighborhood and found other walls higher
than the permitted 42" located within the surrounding properties’
front yard setback. However the majority of the properties in the
neighborhood do not have walls or have walls that comply with the
Development Code. Staff researched City files and found that the stone
pilasters located in the front yard setback area of 22 La Vista Verde
Drive were determined to be legal non-conforming in 1987. Staff also
found that 27 La Vista Verde applied for a Variance in 1988 to allow
a solid wall in the front yard setback higher than the permitted 42",
and was denied by the Planning Commission because of the same reasons
stated in this report. Additionally, Staff found that Variances have
not been granted to allow walls located in the front yard areas to
be higher than the 42". Therefore, such walls are either non
permitted or legal non-conforming.

Therefore, Staff
is of the opinion that the Variance is not necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which
right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions
in the same zoning district because the majority of the properties
in the neighborhood have walls and fences which comply with the Development
Code. As such Staff is of the opinion that this finding cannot be
adopted.

That
granting the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which
the property is located.

The applicant
is of the opinion that since there are other walls that are higher
than 42" in the neighborhood, the granting of the Variance to
allow the block wall to be higher than 42" will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare.

Staff is of the
opinion that the approval of the Variance will be materially detrimental
to the surrounding properties, because a solid wall adjacent to the
street will have a negative visual impact on the neighborhood and
negatively contrasts with the open front yards found predominantly
in this neighborhood. In addition, allowing such walls would detract
from the semi-rural and open character of this residential neighborhood.
As such, Staff is of the opinion that this finding cannot be adopted.

That
granting the Variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the
General Plan or the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific
Plan.

Staff is of the
opinion that granting the Variance is contrary to the policies of
the General Plan because the Development Code does not allow solid
walls in the front and along street side setbacks. More Specifically,
it is a policy of the General Plan to "make an effort through
zoning…. to preserve the rural and open character of the City."
(General Plan, page 78, policy 17). Additionally, granting the Variance
is contrary to the policies of the General Plan because it is the
goal of he City of Rancho Palos Verdes to enhance the visual character
and physical quality of existing neighborhoods (General Plan, page
56), and as discussed above, allowing such walls would detract from
the semi-rural and open character of this residential neighborhood.

ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION

As
noted above, on November 8, 2001 the City mailed out 52 notices (including
the applicant). During the noticing period, the Planning Department
received three correspondences pertaining to the proposed project.

The
letters from Mrs. Gilda Marshall from 15 La Vista Verde Drive, Mr. Harold
Herman from 8 La Vista Verde Drive, and Mr. and Mrs. Jerome Sorkin from
27 La Vista Verde Drive are attached as Exhibit "B". The correspondence
indicates concerns in regards to the aesthetic impact that a solid wall
along the street of access would have on the neighborhood, specifically
related to the open character of the neighborhood. Mr. and Mrs. Zorkin
also indicated that they have requested a Variance for solid walls in
the front yard area and were denied in the past.

CONCLUSION

Based
upon the above analysis, Staff determined thatthe four findings
for granting a Variance cannot be made to allow the existing solid wall
with ten (10) pilasters to remain. Staff has concerns regarding the
aesthetics impacts a solid wall will have in the neighborhood, therefore
Staff is not able to positively recommend approval on the subject application.
Therefore, Staff recommends adoption of P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__,
denying Variance Permit (Case No. 2001-00088).

ALTERNATIVES

In
addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternatives are
available for the Planning Commission's consideration:

Approve Variance
Permit (Case No. ZON2001-00088) with conditions, and direct Staff
to prepare an appropriate P.C. Resolution and conditions of approval
for Planning Commission consideration at the next meeting.

Identify any
issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or
the applicant with direction in modifying the project and/or conditions
of approval, and continue the public hearing to a date certain.

ATTACHMENTS

Draft P.C. Resolution
No. 2001-__

Floor plan and
Site Plan

Letter from Mrs.
Gilda Marshall from 15 La Vista Verde Drive

Letter from Mr.
Harold Herman from 8 La Vista Verde Drive

Letter from Mr.
and Mrs. Jerome Sorkin from 27 La Vista Verde Drive

P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__

A RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING
VARIANCE (CASE NO. ZON2001-00088) A REQUEST TO ALLOW AN EXISTING
6’-0" HIGH SOLID BLOCK WALL WITH TEN (10) PILASTERS TO REMAIN
WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 10 LA VISTA VERDE DRIVE.

WHEREAS,
on September 26, 2001 an application for Variance (Case No. ZON2001-00088)
was submitted to the Planning Department to legalize an existing 6’-0"
high solid block wall with ten (10) pilasters located within the front
yard setback; and,

WHEREAS,
on October 25, 2001 the subject application was deemed complete for
processing by Staff; and,

WHEREAS,
on November 8, 2001 a public notice was mailed to property owners within
a 500 foot radius of the subject property informing them of the proposed
project. Furthermore, a notice was published in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News on November 10, 2001; and,

WHEREAS,
pursuant to the provision of the California Quality Act, Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et.seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California
Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et.seq., the City's Local
CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(F) (Hazardous Waste
and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Variance (Case
No. ZON2001-00088) would have a significant effect on the environment
and, therefore the proposed project has been found to be categorically
exempt (Class 1, Section 15303(a)); and,

WHEREAS,
after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on December 11, 2001, at which all interested parties were given
the opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

NOW,
THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section
1: That there are no special circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property which
do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district,
since the subject property is a typical graded pad lot found throughout
the zoning district and the owner could construct a wall no higher than
42" similar to other neighboring properties.

Section
2: That the Variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial right of the applicant, which right is possessed
by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district,
because the majority of the properties in the neighborhood have walls
and fences that comply with maximum permitted height by the Development
Code and because other Variances for 6’-0" high block walls have
been denied in the past.

Section
3: That approval of the Variance will cause materially detrimental
effects on surrounding properties, in that a solid wall adjacent to
the street of access will have a negative visual impact on the neighborhood
and negatively contrasts with the open front yards found predominantly
in this neighborhood. In addition, the impact of allowing such walls
would detract from the semi rural and open character of this residential
neighborhood.

Section 4:
That the Variance request is contrary to the policy of the General Plan
because it is a policy of the General Plan to "make an effort through
zoning to preserve the rural and open character of the City" (General
Plan Page 78 Policy 17), and the Development Code does not allow solid
walls higher than 42 inches in height in the front and along street
side setbacks.

Section 5:
Any interested party may appeal this decision or any portion of this
decision to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040.C.1.j of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed
with the City, in writing, and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later
than fifteen (15) days following the date of the Planning Commission’s
adoption of this resolution.

Section 6:
For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes, and other records of proceedings,
the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies
Variance (Case No.ZON2001-00088), thereby denying the after the fact
approval of an existing 6’-0" to 7’-0" high solid block wall
along the front property line at 10 La Vista Verde Drive.

PASSED,
APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December, 2001, by the following
vote:

Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to the January
22, 2002 meeting, and direct Staff to re-notice the proposed project
in accordance to the provisions set forth in the Development Code.

DISCUSSION

On
November 5, 2001, the subject applications were deemed complete for
processing and the required public notice of the public hearing, was
mailed to property owners within a 500’ radius of the subject property,
all interested parties, and published in the Peninsula News informing
the general public of the proposed project and inviting any comments
for consideration. In response, the City received eleven (11) letters
from neighboring property owners expressing concern with the proposed
project as it pertains to the accuracy of the silhouette, potential
view impacts and the proposed residence’s incompatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood. In response to the comments, Staff re-measured the silhouette
and determined that the footprint of the silhouette was plotted incorrectly
by approximately five (5) feet, which directly impacts the depicted
height. As a result, Staff informed the property owners that Staff’s
recommendation to the Commission would be to continue the public hearing
to allow the silhouette to be corrected so that Staff, the Commissioners
and the public could accurately evaluate the proposed project. The property
owners indicated that the silhouette will be corrected and agreed to
the continuance of the public hearing. Staff also advised the property
owners to conduct a meeting with the surrounding neighbors to hear the
concerns expressed during the public noticing period.

In
order to allow the public to comment on the proposed project based on
the revised silhouette, Staff recommends that the public hearing be
continued to the January 22, 2002 meeting. Furthermore, Staff recommends
that the proposed project be re-noticed, thereby informing the general
public of the new public hearing date and inviting new comments based
on the revised silhouette. It should also be noted that Staff has notified
all interested parties of Staff’s recommended continuance.

ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION

Pursuant
to the Permit Streamlining Act, a decision on the proposed project must
be made by January 4, 2002, which is sixty days from the date of completeness.
Since Staff recommends continuing the public hearing to the January
22, 2002 meeting, which is beyond the action deadline date, a one time,
ninety day, time extension has been submitted by the applicant (see
attachment) to allow adequate time to evaluate the proposed project.

CONCLUSION

Based
on the above discussion, Staff recommends that the public hearing for
this item be continued to the January 22, 2002 meeting, and that a new
public notice be provided in accordance to the public noticing provisions
set forth in the Development Code.

Deny
the appeal and uphold the Director’s determination that senior condominiums
are inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Institutional (I)
zoning district.

BACKGROUND

On
October 12, 2001, Alan Boeker of Standard Pacific submitted a request
for a use determination for a vacant site on Crestridge Road, pursuant
to Section 17.26.030(N) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code
(RPVDC). The request was for a determination that senior condominiums
are similar to and no more intensive than other conditionally-permitted
uses in the Institutional (I) zoning district. Standard Pacific is considering
purchasing the property from its current owner, Crestridge Estates llc,
and pursuing an application for a 104-unit senior condominium project
on the site. Standard Pacific has also expressed interest in a larger,
120-unit residential project that would encompass the subject property
as well as a portion of the adjacent, 19.64-acre City-owned property
that is currently proposed for a senior affordable housing project (Indian
Ridgecrest Gardens).

On
October 26, 2001, the Director issued a determination that senior condominiums
are not consistent with the Institutional (I) zoning district. The Director’s
determination is detailed in the attached memorandum. On November 12,
2001, Mr. Boeker filed an appeal of the Director’s determination, accompanied
by the appropriate appeal fee.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant
to Section 17.26.030(E) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code
(RPVDC), "[sanitariums], nursing homes, rest homes, homes for the
aged, homes for children and homes for mental patients" are conditionally
permitted in the Institutional (I) zoning district. Senior condominiums
are not explicitly listed as a permitted or a conditionally permitted
use in this zoning district. However, pursuant to RPVDC Section 17.26.030(N),
other uses that "the Director deems to be similar and no more intensive"
than other conditionally-permitted uses may be permitted with the approval
of a conditional use permit.

There
are two existing and two proposed institutional uses in the City that
provide housing and related services for senior citizens: The Canterbury
(5801 Crestridge Road), Palos Verdes Villa (29661 Western Avenue), the
proposed Belmont Village (5701 Crestridge Road) and the proposed Indian
Ridgecrest Gardens (5555 Crestridge Road). None of these projects include
or propose individual ownership of dwelling units by the residents.
However, a common feature of the first three of these projects is that
they each provide essential life assistance for many—if not all—of their
residents, including daily housekeeping and health care, daily meal
service (since many rooms and units in these facilities lack private
kitchens) and other specialized services and programs (such as Alzheimer’s
disease care). If approved as currently proposed, the Indian Ridgecrest
Gardens senior apartment project would provide a more independent lifestyle
for residents, and the affordability component of the project would
ensure that the basic housing needs of lower-income senior citizens
are met. In addition, transportation, meal service, housekeeping and
other care-giving services would also be offered to residents of the
Indian Ridgecrest Gardens project on an "as needed" basis.

The
project proposed by Standard Pacific would involve age-restricted, for-sale
condominiums and a commonly-owned community center. Standard Pacific
proposes to offer additional "special" services to residents
on an "as needed" basis, including transportation, housekeeping
and social and recreational activities. A homeowners’ association would
also be responsible for common area maintenance and other "standard"
benefits of condominium ownership, but each dwelling unit would be owned
in fee by the resident of the unit. All of the community’s residents
would automatically enjoy the "standard" services of the project,
but they could choose to avail themselves of all, some or none of the
additional "special" services offered by the developer. As
such, Staff believes that these "special" services are provided
to the residents more as conveniences than as essential life services.
The Director believes that this is an important difference between Standard
Pacific’s proposal and the other conditionally-permitted uses in the
Institutional (I) zoning district, which makes it dissimilar from The
Canterbury, Palos Verdes Villa, Belmont Village or Indian Ridgecrest
Gardens.

With
respect to the issue of intensity of use, Staff believes that Standard
Pacific’s proposal might be less intense than a residential condominium
project in terms of its density, but more intense in terms of traffic
and other impacts to the surrounding area than some other type of institutional
use that could be permitted on the site. Staff also believes that Standard
Pacific’s proposal more closely resembles a residential condominium
project—with some additional but optional convenience services—than
it does a true congregate care facility. However, even if Standard Pacific’s
proposal is less intense than other conditionally-permitted uses in
the Institutional (I) zoning district, the Director’s determination
must be based upon a finding that the proposed use is both similar to
and no more intense than these other uses. As discussed above,
the Director found that the use proposed by Standard Pacific is not
similar to these other uses.

In
addition to the required "findings" specified in RPVDC Section
17.26.030(N), the Director also considered the opinion of the City Attorney
regarding the consistency of senior condominiums with the Institutional
(I) zoning district, as expressed in a letter to the developer of the
Indian Ridgecrest Gardens project on June 7, 2001 (see attachments to
the October 26, 2001 memorandum form the Director). The original 1999
proposal for Indian Ridgecrest Gardens was for eighty-four (84) age-restricted,
affordable apartments, which, at the time, seemed consistent with the
Institutional (I) zoning district standards. By early in 2001, the total
number of apartments had decreased to fifty-two (52), of which only
thirteen (13) would be reserved as affordable, but this was still felt
to be consistent with the Institutional (I) zoning district because
it would still be an apartment complex with a single owner retaining
control over all of the units. Most recently, however, the project proponent
requested permission to change the project to forty-two (42) age-restricted,
for-sale units. The City Attorney believes that the proposed change
in the Indian Ridgecrest Gardens project to multiple ownership would
create significant difficulties for the City in ensuring the long-term
affordability of the units, enforcing the age restrictions on occupants
of the project, and guaranteeing the continued provision of special
services for the residents of the project. The City Attorney believes
that these difficulties would not occur with a seniors-only apartment
project since the owner and operator of the apartment would bear the
responsibility for these conditions. At the August 21, 2001 meeting
of the City’s Redevelopment Agency, the Agency elected not to enter
into a new exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) with the developer
of Indian Ridgecrest Gardens. Although the Agency did not make a definitive
determination regarding the appropriateness of condominiums on the site,
it did direct Staff to review other potential uses of the site in addition
to a senior affordable housing project.

Standard
Pacific has responded to the Director’s determination with additional
information submitted on November 20, 2001. Standard Pacific asserts
that the Director’s determination that the proposed project is not similar
to other conditionally-permitted uses is weakened by comparisons to
the proposed Indian Ridgecrest Gardens project. Staff included this
project in the analysis of the consistency of Standard Pacific’s proposal
for comparison purposes, but it is entirely possible that Indian Ridgecrest
Gardens may not be approved. By comparison, both The Canterbury and
Palos Verdes Villa have been in operation for many years, and the proposed
Belmont Village project is substantially similar to the Marriott Brighton
Gardens project that was approved for the same site in 1999. Therefore,
Staff believes that the Director’s determination that Standard Pacific’s
proposal is not consistent with the other conditionally-permitted uses
in the Institutional (I) zoning district is based upon a valid distinction
drawn between Standard Pacific’s proposal and other existing and proposed
projects in the Institutional (I) zoning district.

Standard
Pacific also takes exception to the Director’s assessment of the intensity
of the proposed project, as compared to other conditionally-permitted
uses in the Institutional (I) zoning district. Specifically, Standard
Pacific objects to the comparison of the traffic impacts of their proposal
with those of a residential condominium with the same number of units.
However, based upon the table below, even if Standard Pacific’s project
is categorized as "Elderly Housing-Attached"(ITE Code 253),
the likely, daily trip generation for the same number of units is higher
than that expected for a "Congregate Care Facility" (ITE Code
252), although the peak-hour trips would probably be lower.

Type
of Use (ITE code)

Average
Daily
Weekday Trips

PM
Weekday
Peak-Hour Trips

Congregate
Care (252)

224

18

Elderly
Housing-Attached (253)

362

11

As such, it might be arguable that Standard Pacific’s proposal is no
more intensive than other conditionally-permitted uses in the Institutional
(I) zoning district. However, as noted above, the Director must find
the proposal is both similar to and no more intensive than other
conditionally-permitted uses.

Standard
Pacific has provided conceptual building and site plans to support its
argument that the proposed project would enhance the site and be of
benefit to the community. Staff does not refute Standard Pacific’s position
that this might be an attractive, well-designed residential project
that could fulfill a need in the community. Staff does not agree, however,
with Standard Pacific’s position that this proposal is an institutional
use that would be consistent with the current zoning of the property
in question. As such, Staff believes that the Director correctly found
that Standard Pacific’s proposal is not consistent with the intent and
purpose of the Institutional (I) zoning district.

ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION

On
November 21, 2001, public notices were mailed to the appellant, the
property owner, fifty-nine other property owners within a 500-foot radius
of the project site, and representatives of the Mesa Palos Verdes
and Ridgecrest communities. On November 29, 2001, public notice
of the December 11, 2001 public hearing for this appeal was published
in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News. As of the date this report
was completed, Staff had received additional information from the appellant
on November 20, 2001, but no other letters regarding this appeal had
been received.

CONCLUSION

Based
upon the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s determination in this matter,
via Minute Order.

ALTERNATIVES

In
addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternatives are
available for the Planning Commission's consideration:

1.
Uphold the appeal and overturn the Director’s determination in this
matter.

2.
Identify any issues of concern with the Director’s determination, provide
Staff with further direction, and continue the public hearing to a date
certain.

On
October 12, 2001, Steve Kaplan submitted a request for a use determination
on behalf of Alan Boeker and Standard Pacific for a vacant site on Crestridge
Road, pursuant to Section 17.26.030(N) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development
Code (RPVDC). The request was for a determination that senior condominiums
are similar to and no more intensive than other conditionally-permitted
uses in the Institutional (I) zoning district.

SITE
AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The
subject property is a 9.76-acre site in the 5600-block of Crestridge
Road. The parcel was "carved out" of a larger 29.40-acre site
with the City’s approval of Parcel Map No. 25271 in June 1999.
Most recently, the property was the subject of an application for a
100-unit senior condominium project (Crestridge Villas), which
was originally submitted to the City in May 2000. The City administratively
withdrew this application on August 22, 2001, due to the failure of
the then-applicant to submit the necessary information to complete the
application in a timely fashion. The property is surrounded by institutional
and residential uses, as well as open space hazard areas. The land use
and zoning designations for the developable portions of the site are
Institutional and Institutional (I), respectively.

Standard
Pacific is considering purchasing the property from its current owner,
Crestridge Estates llc, and pursuing an application for a senior condominium
project that is similar to the recently-withdrawn Crestridge Villas
project. Standard Pacific currently envisions a 104-unit residential
project on the site that would include a community center for residents.
As an alternative, Standard Pacific has also expressed interest in a
larger, 120-unit residential project that would encompass the subject
property as well as a portion of the adjacent, 19.64-acre City-owned
property that is currently proposed for a senior affordable housing
project.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant
to RPVDC Section 17.26.030(E), the following uses are permitted in the
Institutional (I) zoning district with the approval of a conditional
use permit:

Sanitariums,
nursing homes, rest homes, homes for the aged, homes for children and
homes for mental patients.

Senior
condominiums are not explicitly listed as a permitted or a conditionally
permitted use in this zoning district. However, pursuant to RPVDC 17.26.030(N),
other uses that "the Director deems to be similar and no more intensive"
than other conditionally-permitted uses may be permitted with the approval
of a conditional use permit. Standard Pacific has requested such a determination
for its proposed senior condominium project.

The
City’s institutional zoning districts provide for a "wide range
of major public and quasi-public, institutional and auxiliary uses,
established in response to the health, safety, educational, cultural
and welfare needs of the City, in efficient, functionally-compatible
and attractively-planned administrative centers, medical centers, cultural
centers, educational institutions and similar uses" (RPVDC Section
17.26.010). These districts are scattered throughout the City, and encompass
such diverse uses as public and private schools, churches and other
places of worship, civic and public safety facilities, and homes for
the elderly. The ‘I’ district along Crestridge Road between Crenshaw
Boulevard and Highridge Road is one of the largest institutional zoning
districts in the City that is suitable for future development. This
fact is reflected in the City’s General Plan, which discusses the Crestridge
Road area as a "major new area designated for institutional use"
that is "centrally located [on] the Peninsula" and is intended
"to provide for a complex of future [institutional] uses, rather
than allowing them to scatter throughout the community, where they are
sometimes incompatible with other uses."

There
are two existing and two proposed institutional uses that provide housing
and related services for senior citizens, as summarized in the table
below:

Use

Address

Description

The
Canterbury

5801
Crestridge Rd.

The
Canterbury is an existing nursing home that is owned and operated
by the Episcopal Church. It provides 127 independent-living,
assisted-living and skilled nursing units, as well as transportation
services for residents.

Palos
Verdes Villa

29661
Western Ave.

Palos
Verdes Villa is an existing nursing home that is privately owned
and operated. It provides 71 private and semi-private rooms
without kitchens. Maid and assisted living services are available
and common dining facilities are provided.

Belmont
Village

5701
Crestridge Rd.

Belmont
Village is a proposed senior assisted living facility. Previously,
Marriott Lifecare Services obtained entitlements for the Brighton
Gardens project on this site. The Brighton Gardens project was
approved for a total of 128 beds in a 97-unit assisted-living
facility and a 25-unit Alzheimer’s care facility. Belmont Village
proposes the same numbers of units and beds, and the same scope
of services.

Indian
Ridgecrest Gardens *

5555
Crestridge Rd.

Indian
Ridgecrest Gardens is a proposed senior affordable apartment
complex. If approved as currently proposed, it would provide
52 self-contained apartment units with kitchens, as well as
community facilities and services such as transportation and
recreation. Twelve of the proposed 52 apartments would be made
affordable to senior citizens with very low, low and moderate
incomes.

* The Indian Ridgecrest Gardens project is being considered
by the City, along with other alternative land uses for the City-owned
site at the corner of Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard. A report
on the possible alternative uses of this site is expected to be presented
to the City Council some time in early 2002.

A common feature of the first three projects listed above is that they
each provide essential life assistance for many—if not all—of their
residents. Such assistance includes care with daily housekeeping and
health care, daily meal service (since many rooms and units in these
facilities lack private kitchens) and other specialized services and
programs (such as Alzheimer’s disease care). These types of essential
life services are consistent with the types of conditionally-permitted
senior housing facilities allowed in the ‘I’ district, which include
sanitariums, nursing homes, rest homes and homes for the aged. If approved,
the Indian Ridgecrest Gardens project would provide a more independent
lifestyle for residents, but the affordability component of the project
would ensure that the basic housing needs of lower-income senior citizens
are met. As such, these existing and proposed facilities serve the institutional
needs of the senior citizen population by fulfilling basic requirements
for living: shelter, food and health care.

The
project proposed by Standard Pacific would involve age-restricted, for-sale
condominiums and a commonly-owned community center. Standard Pacific
proposes to offer additional "special" services to residents
on an "as needed" basis, including transportation, housekeeping
and social and recreational activities. A homeowners’ association would
also be responsible for common area maintenance (such as landscaping)
and other "standard" benefits of condominium ownership. All
of the community’s residents would automatically enjoy the "standard"
services of the project, but could choose to avail themselves of all,
some or none of the additional "special" services. As such,
these "special" services—which Standard Pacific asserts to
be the main reason why this proposal should be considered an institutional
use rather than a residential use—are provided to the residents more
as conveniences than as essential services. In this way, the Director
believes that Standard Pacific’s proposal for senior condominiums is
not similar to the other conditionally-permitted uses in the Institutional
(I) zoning district.

With
respect to the issue of intensity of use, Standard Pacific’s proposal
would be less dense than the above-mentioned institutional uses that
provide housing and related services for senior citizens. This reduced
density is more consistent with residential densities elsewhere in the
City than with those expected for an institutional use. Another measure
of the intensity of the proposed use is the likely traffic that it would
generate. The table below demonstrates the difference in trip generation
(based upon ITE trip generation formulae) that could result from the
same 104-unit project as a congregate care facility and a residential
condominium.

Type
of Use (ITE code)

Average
Daily
Weekday Trips

PM
Weekday
Peak-Hour Trips

Congregate
Care (252)

224

18

Residential
Condominium/Townhouse (230)

609

56

As discussed above, Standard Pacific’s proposal more closely resembles
a residential condominium project—with some additional but optional
convenience services—than it does a true congregate care facility. Therefore,
the Director believes that the project currently envisioned would probably
be more intensive than other conditionally-permitted uses in the Institutional
(I) zoning district.

ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION

On
June 7, 2001, the City Attorney responded to an inquiry from the developer
of the Indian Ridgecrest Gardens project regarding a proposal to change
the project from a senior apartment complex to a senior condominium
complex. In her response, the City Attorney raised the issue of the
level of services provided in a condominium project versus those provided
in a project with single ownership (i.e., apartments). She also raised
concerns about the ability of the City to ensure the future provision
of these services when dealing with multiple property owners instead
of a single owner or operator. Finally, the City Attorney was concerned
about the enforcement of affordable housing restrictions upon the resale
of individual condominium units, based upon poor experiences with this
type of program in the past.

Standard
Pacific has attempted to address these concerns by submitting sample
CC&R language regarding resident age restrictions and affordable
housing requirements. With respect to the sample age restrictions, up
to twenty percent (20%) of the residents of the community could be younger
than fifty-five (55) years of age. In households with a person fifty-five
(55) years of age or older, only one such person would have to reside
in the residence and only for six (6) months out of the year to meet
permanent residency requirements. Additional residents forty-five (45)
years of age—and younger, under certain circumstances—could also reside
in a household on a permanent basis. On a temporary basis, anyone could
live in the household for up to sixty (60) days per year. As such, a
significant portion of the population of the proposed project might
not be senior citizens. The City understands that the basis and authority
for the sample age restrictions comes largely from State and Federal
fair housing law. However, based upon these sample restrictions, the
Director believes that the proposed project would not be consistent
with being a "home for the aged," even though Standard Pacific
has requested consideration of this proposal on this basis.

CONCLUSION

Based
upon the foregoing discussion, the Director of Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement has determined that senior condominiums are not consistent
with Institutional (I) zoning district because:

Senior condominiums
are not similar to other conditionally-permitted uses in the Institutional
(I) zoning district; and,

Senior condominiums
are more intensive than other conditionally-permitted uses in the
Institutional (I) zoning district.

This
determination is also supported in recent correspondence from the City
Attorney regarding the proposal for condominiums rather than apartments
for the Indian Ridgecrest Gardens project. Therefore, the Director has
determined that senior condominiums are neither a permitted use nor
a conditionally permitted use within the Institutional (I) zoning district.
As such, the City could not accept an application for the project as
currently proposed because it would be inconsistent with the underlying
zoning of the property.

Attachments

Use determination
request from Standard Pacific (dated October 12, 2001)

On
October 22, 2001, the applicant, Mr. Eugene Summers, submitted an application
for Variance and Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2001-00107) to the Department
of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. On October 30, 2001 the
application was deemed generally complete to begin processing. The applications
request approval for the construction of a new 630 square-foot detached
three (3) car garage and a six (6) foot high concrete wall within the
front yard setback area of the lot. The proposed garage will replace
an existing 404 square-foot attached two (2) car garage, which is currently
not in the front yard setback area. The proposed garage will result
in an eleven (11) foot reduction in the twenty (20) foot front yard
setback area.

On
November 21, 2001, the City mailed notices to property owners within
a 500-foot radius from the subject property. The California Coastal
Commission was noticed as well. Subsequently, a notice of public hearing
was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on Thursday,
November 29, 2001. As of the drafting of the staff report, Staff has
not received any concerns (either in writing or verbally) from the notified
property owners regarding the proposed garage and wall.

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

In
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), Staff had determined this project to be categorically exempt
under Class 1 – Existing Structures; therefore, no further environmental
review is required.

Class
1 exempts from the preparation of environmental documents a project
consisting of "accessory structures including garages, carports, patios,
swimming pools, and fences". Planning staff made this determination
since the proposed construction involves an accessory structure (detached
garage).

SITE
DESCRIPTION

The
subject property is located at 4174 Maritime, a gently down-sloping
lot on the South side of Maritime. The site is accessed off Maritime,
which terminates at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive South. The
property is located in the Portuguese Bend Club Community, a gated community
that lies within an appealable area of the City’s Coastal Setback Zone.
The site is located on the seaward side of Maritime and is considered
a "bluff top" lot, in that it is bound between the mean high
tide line and the first public road. The subject property is in Subregion
VI of the Coastal Specific Plan and is not located within the landslide
moratorium area. The parcel measures 5,250 square-feet in area, and
is developed with a 1,088 square-foot one (1) story single-family residence
and a 404 square-foot attached two (2) car garage. The attached garage
is currently accessed by a direct driveway off of Maritime. The lot
contains fifty (50) feet of street frontage on the North side, an average
lot depth of 105 feet, and fifty (50) feet along the South rear property
line. The property line extends into and includes, half the width of
Maritime, making Maritime a privately owned road. Subsequently, there
is a sixteen (16) foot public right-of-way easement on the front of
the property where development is prohibited. The lot is zoned RS-2,
and is adjacent to other residential lots that are currently developed
with one (1) story single-family residences.

From
Maritime, a gentle front yard slope descends to the existing residence
and attached two (2) car garage. Beyond the rear of the residence it
begins to drastically slope down to the rear of the property at a slope
between 30- and 40- percent where no structure is currently located.
The residence and attached garage is currently setback 30’ from the
easement on the front of the property. The residence is currently non-conforming
with a side setback of 4’-8" (required 5’-0") from the property
line on the West side and a rear setback of 13’-0" (required 15’-0")
from the rear property line on the South side. The East side of the
residence is currently conforming with a side setback of 5’-0".
The existing open space on the property is 51%, which also is non-conforming
with the City’s Development Code minimum of 60%, RS-2 open space standard.

When
reviewing building permits for the lot, Staff established that the building
is currently not in its original location. The residence was relocated
from 634 Sea Bench Road in the Portuguese Bend landslide area in 1958
under Los Angeles County review due to landslide and erosion concerns.
As a result, the house was moved to a smaller and more secure lot on
Maritime, thus, creating a non-conforming but legal building since it
was relocated to its current position before the incorporation of the
City and the adoption of the City’s Development Code.

PROJECT
DESCRIPTION

The
applicant is proposing to demolish the existing attached 404 square-foot
garage and construct a new detached three (3) car garage and six (6)
foot high concrete wall. The proposed detached garage and wall will
be located at the front of the residence and will encroach eleven (11)
feet into the required front yard setback area, thereby maintaining
a nine (9) foot setback from the public easement. The detached garage
will be located at a grade elevation that is approximately three (3)
feet higher than the main entrance to the house. Due to the grade difference
between the buildings, the layout will require a series of outside steps
from the garage to the main residence, even though the residence is
a single story.

The
resulting open space after construction will be 55%, which does not
meet the City’s Development Code RS-2 minimum standards for open space
of 60%, but will be an improvement from the original 51% of legal non-conforming
open space. The applicant does not propose to add 50% or more to the
existing floor area, therefore the non-conforming structure is not required
to conform to current open space standards, in accordance with Development
Code Section 17.84.060(E). However, the proposed garage and wall are
required to conform to current setback requirements. Further, the height
of the proposed garage will be 11’-8 5/8" measured from the highest
point covered by the structure to the highest ridgeline of the structure.
The lowest point covered by structure to the highest ridgeline will
be 14’-2 5/8".

According
to the City’s Coastal Specific Plan, the subject property is located
within Subregion VI of the designated Coastal District. Therefore, any
proposed development within the Coastal Zone requires a Coastal Permit
that determines conformity with the City’s Coastal Specific Plan. Additionally,
since the project site is located within an area that is between the
mean high tide line and the first public road (Maritime), this portion
of the Coastal District is defined as an "appealable" area,
which means that a development application reviewed by the City is appealable
to the California Coastal Commission. A decision on a development application
involving a coastal Permit does not become final until the appeal process
is exhausted with the California Coastal Commission.

CODE
CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS

Variance:

Pursuant to
Section 17.02.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, all structures
must maintain a minimum front yard setback of twenty (20) feet from
the front property line and five (5) feet from the side property line.
Since the applicant is requesting a nine (9) foot front yard setback
for the detached garage and wall, a Variance Application is required.
In considering a Variance Application, Section 17.64.050 of the Development
Code requires that the Planning Commission make four findings in reference
to the subject property and the project under consideration (Development
Code language in boldface, followed by Staff’s analysis in normal
type)

That
there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the
property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same
zoning district.

As indicated
above, the subject property is located within the Portuguese Bend Club,
a gated, beach cottage community established in the late 1950’s under
Los Angeles County’s review and development standards at that time.
The lots are considerably smaller in area than other similarly zoned
lots throughout the City. The minimum area for a newly created RS-2
zoned lot is 20,000 square feet. The subject lot is only 14,750 square-feet,
which is smaller than the minimum lot size standard for an RS-2 zoned
lot (approx. ¼ the size of a new RS-2 lot). Furthermore, the lot area
is actually only 5,250 square-feet, after removing the private right-of-way
easement area. Considering this, the lot is only ¼ the size of a new
RS-2 zoned lot. Thus, because of the lot size and limitations found
throughout the area, there are not many alternative layouts for the
residences. Additionally, even though most of the homes are very modest
in size, because of the severely substandard lot sizes, many, if not
most of the homes in the area, are not able to meet the City’s minimum
open space standards. This is true of the subject residence, which already
does not satisfy the minimum 60% open space requirement with a current
total of 51% open space.

In addition
to the small size of the lot, the house is currently setback 4’-8"
on the West side and 5’-0" on the East side, and therefore contains
no area to construct a detached garage on either side of the residence.
The only area available to construct a detached garage to the residence
is at the front of the property where the proposed structure is located.
Further, Staff has found that the property across the street was approved
with a Variance, which allowed them to build an attached 2-½ car garage
within the required twenty (20) foot setback area. In addition, the
neighbor to the West was approved with a Variance, which allowed them
to construct a six (6) foot wall in the required side setback area.
The neighbor’s garage and wall to the East are also setback nine (9)
feet from the public easement. Therefore, Staff believes that the existing
structure configuration, public easement, and small lot size limit the
area in which a detached three (3) car garage and six (6) foot high
wall can be accommodated. As such, this finding can be made and adopted.

That
such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed
by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning
district.

The subject
property is currently improved with a residential structure, an attached
two (2) car garage, and a large deck in the rear of the residence. The
expansion of the residence cannot be accommodated within the standards
of the Development Code requirements due to physical constraints of
the property. The area to the rear is not accessible from the street
of access and contains a slope between 30- and 40- percent; and the
areas to the West and East are already built out to their respected
side setback areas. ike other parcels in the immediate vicinity, many
contain a lot that cannot accommodate development without encroaching
into setbacks, and thereby require a Variance application. The residences
on both sides of the subject property contain garages and walls that
are located in the required front setback area. The proposed garage
and wall will be setback the same distance as others in the same neighborhood.
The neighbors on both sides of the subject property have reduced front
setbacks of approximately nine (9) feet. Due to the physical constraints
of the subject property, the only feasible location to provide for a
detached three (3) car garage and wall for the residence is towards
the front yard area, which results in an encroachment into the required
front yard setback area. Therefore, Staff believes that the variance
requested is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of property
rights similar to those enjoyed by other properties in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property. As such, this finding can be made
and adopted.

That
granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which
the property is located.

The granting
of the variance to allow a nine (9) foot front yard setback will not
be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the
area. A site visit was conducted by staff and determined that the detached
garage will blend in well with surrounding structures nearby. The garage
and wall will not have any adverse impacts to the homes in the surrounding
area since it would not impair any views, create a loss of privacy or
adversely affect the visual relationship with other adjacent properties.
The size of the proposed garage and the reduced setback will be in conjunction
with neighboring garages. Neighboring garages have a reduced setback
of approximately nine (9) feet, which is the same as the proposed detached
garage and wall. The roof design of the garage will tie in nicely with
the existing design of the residence, but at a slightly higher elevation.
The front façade of the garage and wall will follow an existing
façade line along Maritime and will not appear out of character
with the existing neighborhood. Therefore, Staff believes that granting
the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare and this
finding can be adopted.

That
granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the
General Plan or the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific
Plan.

The General
Plan land use designation for the neighborhood within which the subject
property is located is Residential, 1-2 DU/acre. The development of
accessory structures and additions for single-family residences is consistent
with this underlying land use designation. The addition is consistent
with the General Plan’s goal to protect the general health, safety,
and welfare of the community (Land Use Plan, Page 192-193) since they
will be located in respect to setbacks, design and size of adjacent
properties, which mitigates concerns of dominance of the structure.
As such, Staff believes that granting the variance will not be contrary
to the City’s General Plan; therefore, this finding can be made and
adopted. The requirements and policies of the Coastal Specific Plan
are discussed below under Coastal Permit.

Coastal
Permit:

As
previously indicated in this Staff Report, the subject property is located
in the City’s designated Coastal Zone, and is considered a "bluff
top" lot, located between the mean high tide line and the first
public road (Maritime). Further, the subject property is located between
the Coastal Structure Setback Line and the Coastal Setback Line.

According
to the Development Code, a Coastal Permit is required for development
within the Coastal Zone to assure that proposed improvements conform
to the City’s Coastal Specific Plan. In considering an application for
a Coastal Permit in an appealable area of the Coastal District, Section
17.72.090 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code requires that
the Planning Commission positively make the following two findings (Development
Code language in boldface, followed by Staff’s analysis in normal
type):

The
proposed development is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan.

The
subject property is located in Subregion VI of the Coastal Specific
Plan, which is located in one of the most Southern areas of the City’s
coastal region. Subregion VI is bordered on the West by the active Portuguese
Bend Landslide and on the East by vacant land identified as Subregion
VII. At the time the City’s Coastal Specific Plan was adopted, the majority
of the area was vacant and a small percentage of land developed with
residential activity. According to the Coastal Specific Plan, residential
activity is considered the most compatible land use designation for
the area, from both a physical and fiscal perspective. Furthermore,
the Plan suggests that commercial and institutional land uses within
this area would not be compatible as residential. As a result of the
Plan’s recommendations, this area is designated by the City’s Land Use
Policy map as residential land use. Therefore, Staff believes that this
finding can be made and adopted.

The
proposed development, when located between the sea and first public
road, is consistent with the applicable public access and recreation
policies of the Coastal act.

The
subject property is an interior "bluff top" property that
is located on the seaward side of Maritime. Although the subject property
is located between the sea and the first public road (Maritime), the
site does not provide public access to the shoreline or to recreational
areas because of the extreme slope that exists between the top and toe
of the bluff. Furthermore, the property does not extend to the coast,
but is separated by adjacent vacant land. Pursuant to Section 30211
(a) of the Coastal Act, provisions state that the public’s right of
access to the shoreline shall not be interfered with, as a condition
of approval for the proposed development. However, Section 30212(b)(3)
of the Coastal Act specifically exempts certain projects (improvements
to a residence which do not change the intensity of its use where the
floor area, height or bulk of a structure is not increased by more than
ten (10%) percent, and the structure does not result in a seaward encroachment)
from this provision. The proposed detached three (3) car garage will
not increase the floor area and height of the existing structure by
more than ten (10%) percent and will not result in a seaward encroachment.
All of the existing residences on the south side of Maritime are located
seaward of the Coastal Setback Line. The City’s Development Code allows
one minor addition to a residence that is within this zone and existed
as of December 26, 1975, given that the addition is less than 250 square-feet.
The total net difference between the existing attached garage to be
demolished and the proposed detached garage is 226 square-feet and less
than the maximum allowed 250 square-feet. Therefore, Staff believes
that this finding can be made since the subject property does not currently
provide, nor will ever provide, public access to the shoreline and conforms
to the policies of the Coastal Act.

ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION

Since
the proposed garage is physically detached and incidental to the use
of the main building it is considered an accessory structure and is
limited to twelve (12) feet in height as measured from the lowest preconstruction
grade adjacent to the foundation wall to ridge. As proposed, the detached
garage will measure 14’-2 5/8" from the lowest preconstruction
grade adjacent to the foundation wall to ridge. However, pursuant to
Section 17.48.050 of the Development Code, a finding may be made that
the detached garage will not have a significant impact on views, and
the garage can be exempted from this limitation, but shall comply with
any other height limitations of the Development Code, which is sixteen
(16) feet for one (1) story structures. The project will not have a
significant impact on views from surrounding properties due to the fact
that the properties on the North side of Maritime currently have no
significant protected view of the ocean. Residences located above, and
to the North of Maritime, are located on an upslope and are higher in
elevation. As a result, these residences will not have views affected
by the project due to their higher elevation. Properties located next
door will not be affected, as they have no viewing area on the North
side of their property where the detached garage and wall will be located.
Therefore, Staff feels that the detached garage may be constructed up
to14’-2 5/8" as measured from the lowest foundation covered by
structure to the top of the ridgeline.

CONCLUSION

Based
upon the above analysis, Staff determined that the findings for Variance
and Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2001-00107) can be made to allow the
construction of a 630 square-foot detached garage and six (6) foot high
wall within the required twenty (20) foot front setback area. Therefore,
Staff recommends approval of Variance and Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2001-00107),
subject to conditions of approval in Exhibit "A".

ALTERNATIVES

In
addition to the Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are
available for the Planning Commission’s consideration:

A RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING
VARIANCE AND COASTAL PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2001-00107), THEREBY PERMITTING
A 630 SQUARE-FOOT DETACHED THREE (3) CAR GARAGE AND SIX (6) FOOT
HIGH CONCRETE WALL WITHIN THE TWENTY (20) FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK
AREA, LOCATED AT 4174 MARITIME.

WHEREAS,
on December 11, 2001, the applicant, Mr. Eugene Summers, submitted Variance
and Coastal Permit (Case No. 2001-00107), requesting approval to construct
a detached three (3) car garage and six (6) foot high concrete wall
within the required twenty (20) foot front setback area on a bluff-top
lot on the seaward side of Maritime; and,

WHEREAS,
on October 30, 2001, the applications for Variance and Coastal Permit
(Case No. 2001-00107) were deemed complete by Staff; and,

WHEREAS,
pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's
CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000
et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code
Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff
found no evidence that Variance and Coastal Permit (Case No. 2001-00107)
would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the
proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class
1 (Section 15301); and,

WHEREAS,
after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Ranchos Palos
Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing on December 11, 2001, at which time all interested parties
were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

NOW,
THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section
1: That the approved project includes the construction of a
new detached three (3) car garage and a six (6) foot high concrete wall
within the required twenty (20) foot front setback area.

Section
2: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended
use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property
in the same zoning district because all of the lots in the "lower"
Portuguese Bend Club community are much smaller than the minimum 20,000
square-foot lot required by the RS-2 zoning district standards, and
few of these homes meet the RS-2 setback or open space requirements.
These factors constitute exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
that do not generally apply to other RS-2 zoned properties in the City.

Section
3: That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed
by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district
because the Portuguese Bend Club community on Maritime is a unique area
and most of the existing lots and structures do not meet current City
development standards. Previous additions, garages, and walls built
in the surrounding area have approved Variances, usually for setback
encroachments and lot coverage. The subject property is typical of homes
and properties on Maritime in that it does not comply with the RS-2
development standards. Therefore, a Variance would be necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of property rights similar to those enjoyed
by others in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.

Section
4: That the requested Variance would not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the
area in which the property is located since it would not impair any
views, create a loss of privacy or adversely affect the visual relationship
with other adjacent properties. The size of the proposed garage and
the reduced setback will be in conjunction with neighboring garages
and will not appear out of character. Furthermore, no opposition to
the development has been stated.

Section
5: That granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives
of the General Plan and the policies and requirements of the Coastal
Specific Plan. The development of accessory structures (i.e., detached
garage) for a single family residence is consistent with the RS-2 underlying
land use designation since the Development Code allows for such structures
to be constructed as an ancillary use to the residential use of the
property. The accessory structure and wall into the required front setback
area will not be detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to
property and improvements in the area since they will be located in
respect to setbacks, design and size of adjacent properties, which mitigates
concerns of dominance of the structure. In addition, the applicants
have submitted geotechnical studies to demonstrate that the design and
setbacks are adequate to insure public safety. Policies and requirements
of the Coastal Specific Plan are discussed below under Section 2.

Section
6: That the proposed development is consistent with the Coastal
Specific Plan since residential activity is considered the most compatible
land use designation for the area, from both a physical and fiscal perspective.
Furthermore, the Plan suggests that commercial and institutional land
uses within this area would not be compatible as residential.

Section
7: That the proposed development, which is located between the
sea and the first public road, is consistent with applicable public
access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act since the site does
not provide public access to the shoreline or to recreational areas
because of the extreme slope that exists between the top and toe of
the bluff.

Section
8: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion
of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections
17.64.060, 17.72.100 and 17.76.040(E)(9) of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing,
and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than January 2, 2002.

Section
9: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and
findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of
proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
hereby approves Variance and Coastal Permit (Case No. 2001-00107), thereby
permitting the construction of a detached three (3) car garage and six
(6) foot high concrete wall within the required front setback area,
located at 4174 Maritime, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit
'A', attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are necessary to
protect the public health, safety and welfare in the area.

PASSED,
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December 2001, by the following
vote:

Prior to the
submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant
and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing,
that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval
contained in this approval. Failure to provide said written statement
within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall
render this approval null and void.

The approval
shall become null and void after one (1) year from the date of approval
by the Planning Commission, unless the approved plans are submitted
to the Building and Safety Division to initiate the "plan check" review
process.

The project shall
allow demolition of the existing attached 404 square-foot garage and
the construction of a new detached three (3) car garage and six (6)
foot high concrete wall. The detached garage and wall will be located
at the front of the residence and will encroach eleven (11) feet into
the required front yard setback area, thereby maintaining a nine (9)
foot setback from the public easement.

Grading is not
permitted with the approval.

The proposed
project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the plans
approved and stamped by the Planning Department with the effective
date of this approval.

The Director
of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor
modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such
modifications achieve substantially the same results as would strict
compliance with said plans and conditions.

Unless considered
a minor modification, as defined in the above Condition No. 6, all
modifications to the approved plans or conditions of approval set
forth herein, shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission using the
same noticing and hearing procedures as the original application.

This approval
shall not become valid until ten (10) working days following the final
City action, provided no appeal has been filed to the California Coastal
Commission.

The proposed
project shall be conducted in full compliance with the conditions
set forth herein.

In the event
that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement
are in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply.

The hours of
construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or on legal
holidays.

The construction
site shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and
debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction
purposes. Such excess material may include, but is not limited to:
the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete,
asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded
furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.

VARIANCE

The new detached
garage shall maintain the following minimum setbacks:

The maximum height
of the detached garage shall not exceed sixteen (16) feet, as measured
from the lowest point of existing grade covered by the structure to
ridge. (proposed measurement from lowest point covered by structure
to ridge: 14’-2 5/8")
(proposed measurement from highest point covered by structure to ridge:
11’-2 5/8")

Each of the three
(3) enclosed parking spaces in the garage shall have an unobstructed
ground space of no less than nine (9) feet in width by twenty (20)
feet in depth, with a minimum of seven feet of vertical clearance.

The resulting
open space of the lot after construction shall not be less than 55%.

The maximum height
of the new concrete wall, including any lights or decorative features,
may not exceed six (6) feet in height.

COASTAL
PERMIT

The replacement
of the old (404 square-feet) garage with the new detached garage (630
square-feet) shall not result in an addition that exceeds exceed 250
square-feet in size.

Appoint two Planning
Commissioners to serve on the City’s Neighborhood Compatibility Sub-Committee.

DISCUSSION

As the Commission
is aware, the City Council has been contemplating whether to make amendments
to the City’s existing "neighborhood compatibility" review
process. At the Council’s December 4th meeting, the Council
agreed to form a committee made up of two Council members and two Planning
Commissioners to study the matter. The purpose of the Committee is to
obtain feedback from the Council of Homeowners, evaluate the issue and
report back to the City Council with a recommendation after 3 months.
The Council appointed Councilman Peter Gardiner and Councilman Larry
Clark to serve on the committee. Staff now recommends that the Planning
Commission appoint its representatives for the Committee.